WW2 - the Brits fault

[SteveF]

Apparently WW2 was our fault and if it weren't for that dumb Mr Churchill, the Holocaust would never have happened. At least, thats what Pat Buchanan says in his revisionist new history of the second world war:

Were World Wars I and II—which can now be seen as a thirty-year paroxysm of slaughter and destruction—inevitable? Were they necessary wars? Were the bloodiest and most devastating conflicts ever suffered by mankind fated by forces beyond men’s control? Or were they products of calamitous failures of judgment? In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen—Winston Churchill first among them—the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.

Among the British and Churchillian blunders were:

• The secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France
• The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that muti- lated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler
• Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo- Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism and conquest
• The 1935 sanctions that drove Italy straight into the Axis with Hitler
• The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939—that guaranteed the Second World War
• Churchill’s astonishing blindness to Stalin’s true ambitions.

Certain to create controversy and spirited argument, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War” is a grand and bold insight into the historic failures of judgment that ended centuries of European rule and guaranteed a future no one who lived in that vanished world could ever have envisioned.

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X/

Will be interesting to read the critical response. It certainly goes against conventional thinking here in the UK (and most other places I suspect).

[Crow]

Heck no, it wasn't necessary.

Everyone could have sat on their hands. Yay for appeasment!

Volkswagens for everybody!

I like Italian food.

I hear that German is a very easy language to learn.

Heil Hitler!

[Kelp]

Just an aside, I find it interesting that you seem to be using the term "revisionist history" in a neutral sense of academic reexamination of long held views of history; rather than referring to a self-serving fabrication like holocaust denial.

That doesn't seem to have caught on much on this side of the pond (outside academia).

[SteveF]

Just an aside, I find it interesting that you seem to be using the term "revisionist history" in a neutral sense of academic reexamination of long held views of history; rather than referring to a self-serving fabrication like holocaust denial.

That doesn't seem to have caught on much on this side of the pond (outside academia).

Yeah, revisionist does get used in a fairly neutral fashion over here (I've read revisionist histories of the "dark ages for example"). However, it's probably fair to say that there are some slight negative conotations associated with the phrase, particularly when we are talking about the events of the 20th century.

Interestingly, in this case, I wouldn't be surprised if Pat Buchanan's revisionist take on things has some overlap with that more notorious "revisionist" David Irving. IIRC, Irving blamed Churchill for quite a lot of stuff. Not that I'm saying that Buchanan is a Holocaust denier, just that there is the potential to get into murky waters here.

[One Bad Pig]

I'd grant that the Treaty of Versailles was not calculated to engender German feelings of good-will toward the victors, but it seems a bit unfair to pin all the blame for that on the British.

[Philosophickle]

He explains himself on Colbert:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021405.html

Btw, it was Jaltus' fault.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I'd grant that the Treaty of Versailles was not calculated to engender German feelings of good-will toward the victors, but it seems a bit unfair to pin all the blame for that on the British.

Wasn't it mainly the French who were pushing the punitive measures, as they had more to fear from a strong Germany and were punished during the war more than England? And wasn't it the French who failed to march when the Rhineland was re-militarized, and even Hitler admitted that had the French done so he would have been finished?

I know, it was the Italians fault. Mussolini was the only pre-war leader to ever check Hitlers ambitions, but he fell down on the job when it really counted because of his greed for glory. The Italians also destroyed the League of Nations by walking out of Versailles and later by invading Ethiopia.

[Paintbucket]

I blame the French for WW2.

[historic salve]

I'd grant that the Treaty of Versailles was not calculated to engender German feelings of good-will toward the victors, but it seems a bit unfair to pin all the blame for that on the British.
I agree. The rivalry between France and Germany that persisted at least from WWI is due a lot of the blame. The French insisted on strict terms of surrender in WWI. Britain can only really be blamed for getting into the war too late, because their prime minister favored appeasement.

[Tladatsi]

I'd grant that the Treaty of Versailles was not calculated to engender German feelings of good-will toward the victors, but it seems a bit unfair to pin all the blame for that on the British.

WW I was very simple, Britain owned the world and Germany wanted it. The rest is details. WW II was the same as WW I, squared.

[Stabbytheclown]

So Stalin's true ambition was to be invaded by Germany?

[the_eliot_one]

• The secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France

World war 1is no more Britains fault than it was anyone elses. All parties in that war were guilty, Russia declared war on Austria Germany on Russia and France and Belgium, Britain on Germany. It's hardly Britan alones fault WW1 happened.

• The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that muti- lated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler

Britain wanted to be far lighter on Germany than we in fact were, blaiming that on us is hardly accurate. Besides Germany would have recovered and was recovering if not for the economic depression.

• Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo- Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism and conquest

American was a better ally then Japan was. The alternative would have left America hostile towards Japan anyway. America kept america alive during WWI it made economic sense to be friendly with them, even if it was at the expense of our alliance with Japan. There was nothing to suggest WWII would have been caused by this at the time.

• The 1935 sanctions that drove Italy straight into the Axis with Hitler

Please, Mussolini himself stated the sanctions meant little to Italy because America refused to join. He was already an expansionist faccist reigieme that sympathised with Hitler.

• The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939—that guaranteed the Second World War

Or else would have left Hitler running rampant taking over the eastern block countries one by one. We'd have had to deal with Hitler sooner or later, if we had not defended Poland it would have been later and he'd have been stronger.

• Churchill’s astonishing blindness to Stalin’s true ambitions.

... Stalin tryed to start WWII eariler. THe Nazi-Soviet pact was a result of appeasment of Germany and the Wests refusal to deal with him earlier. It seems he took the policy of since no one will help me beat him, I better join him before he sets his eyes on my country. I agree appeasment was a bad idea, but HItler was to blaim for WWII and everyone involved to blaim for WWI. Not just Britain.

[Tladatsi]

So Stalin's true ambition was to be invaded by Germany?

Not at all. I do not follow.

[Augustine2004]

Buchanan defends his book against Victor Davis Hanson's attack
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan85.html

[Augustine2004]

William S. Lind reviews Pat Buchanan’s new book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind142.html

. . . genuine history. At present, most Americans know only a comic-book version of history, one in which Germany deliberately started both World Wars as part of a drive to conquer the world, a drive stopped when valiant American armies defeated the German army. And, oh yes, some Brit named Churchill beat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. Thanks to the victories of the freedom-loving allies, we now live in the best of all possible worlds, where everyone can be a "democracy." Lind also writes that leaders such as FDR and Churchill had been imprudent. Unfortunately neocons are following them.

[Nicholas]

Pat Buchanan is obviously very ignorant of history. History may not be as simple as most people make it out to be, but blaming the British for WWII shows a blatant ignorance of history.

[Augustine2004]

Pat Buchanan is obviously very ignorant of history. History may not be as simple as most people make it out to be, but blaming the British for WWII shows a blatant ignorance of history.To be sure, the onus is not totally on the British. I don't think Pat said that only the Brits are to blame. I doubt you've read his book. You probably didn't look at the documentation for it.

[Nicholas]

To be sure, the onus is not totally on the British. I don't think Pat said that only the Brits are to blame. I doubt you've read his book. You probably didn't look at the documentation for it.

Perhaps I was overzealous in my original response. Political decisions played a major role, but whether you consider WWII an unecessary role depends on where you start looking. In a sense, WWII was inevitable at the end of WWI, even before the teaty of Versailles was written, since none of the major powers had any real plans for how to deal with the fragmentation of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires.

[Augustine2004]

Perhaps I was overzealous in my original response. Political decisions played a major role, but whether you consider WWII an unecessary role depends on where you start looking. In a sense, WWII was inevitable at the end of WWI, even before the teaty of Versailles was written, since none of the major powers had any real plans for how to deal with the fragmentation of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires.I think Pat is correct that the British including Churchill was going to fight to keep their dominance (world empire). They made mistakes, so in the end they lost all that.

You have to show me why you think the 'fragmentation' (not just decline?) would have made such a huge difference to world history.

[Nicholas]

I think Pat is correct that the British including Churchill was going to fight to keep their dominance (world empire). They made mistakes, so in the end they lost all that.

You have to show me why you think the 'fragmentation' (not just decline?) would have made such a huge difference to world history.

The fragmentation of the Austro-hungarian Empire was a pretty big thing, it encompassed alot of territory and a large number of different peoples.

[Augustine2004]

That's not what I meant. Apparently your point is that the British would have been sucked into World War I against their will.

[Nicholas]

That's not what I meant. Apparently your point is that the British would have been sucked into World War I against their will.

No, that isn't my point at all. I have no clue where you got that idea.

[Augustine2004]

Sorry. So you think the Brits would have started Word War I deliberately. Isn't that what Pat has been saying all along? However, you seem to think that it would be for a different reason. I don't understand why the breakup of the Ottoman empire and the AH empire would lead the Brits to start World War I, unless they wanted to add to their empire or keep the Germans from grabbing parts of the AH empire and/or the Ottoman empire.

[Nicholas]

Sorry. So you think the Brits would have started Word War I deliberately. Isn't that what Pat has been saying all along? However, you seem to think that it would be for a different reason. I don't understand why the breakup of the Ottoman empire and the AH empire would lead the Brits to start World War I, unless they wanted to add to their empire or keep the Germans from grabbing parts of the AH empire and/or the Ottoman empire.

No. The break up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire happened after WWI. I was saying that the results of the end of the First World War led to the Second World War. I have said absolutely nothing about the causes of the First World War, I have only been discussing the causes of the Second.

[Augustine2004]

Again, sorry. I still don't understand your reasoning. Pat said that the Brits tried to destroy Germany as a world power. What do the O and AH empires have to do with causing WWII?

[Nicholas]

Again, sorry. I still don't understand your reasoning. Pat said that the Brits tried to destroy Germany as a world power. What do the O and AH empires have to do with causing WWII?

As a cause of WWII, the fragmentation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was far more influential than the Ottoman Empire, so I will focus on the former. Although the Russian Empire was also up there with Austria-Hungary as an important factor.

You only need look at a map of the various nationalities that made up the Austro-Hungarian (See link for the source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro_-_Hungary) of this map and others): Empire to see the problems that arose following it's collapse. Basically, every single country that arose from the Austro-Hungarian Empire contained alot of unhappy minorities who didn't like being ruled by other groups. Combine this with the rise of ethnic nationalism and the results aren't going to be pretty. The same happened in both the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

[Augustine2004]

OK, I could understand Germany and Russia getting involved in fighting to grab pieces of the AH empire. But, why did the Brits and France get involved? Couldn't they stay out?

[Nicholas]

OK, I could understand Germany and Russia getting involved in fighting to grab pieces of the AH empire. But, why did the Brits and France get involved? Couldn't they stay out?

No, Russia wasn't trying to grab peices of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia lost large chunks of their Empire as well, which was what became Poland, the Baltic States, and others.

[Cyrus Johnson]

OK, I could understand Germany and Russia getting involved in fighting to grab pieces of the AH empire. But, why did the Brits and France get involved? Couldn't they stay out?

Germany and Russia were not in a position to grab anything after WWI. Russia had been defeated by Germany and concluded a separate peace by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Bolsheviks thought they could get off OK when they started negotiations in December of 1917 because the Germans would be keen to make a peace with them quickly to be able to focus on the west, before the Americans could make big trouble there.They were wrong, and the Germans attacked in Urkraine and elsewhere, eventually forcing the ceding of Finland, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland and the Baltics as basically Geman controlled states. When the Germans were later defeated, they lost these states who either gained independence (for Poland after a war against Russia) or were subsumed back into Russia (Urkraine, Belarus).

The AH empire was broken up, with the constituent pieces becoming independent (Austria, Hangary, Czechoslovakia, Slavic States) or subsumed into the mother country as Polish Galatia. Neither England or France took any part of them. They could not stay out of the war itself because for one thing they had interlocking alliances that made it inevitable that a European war could not be localized. Germany had an alliance with the Austro-Hungarians so that war with Serbia would bring them in...but the Serbs an alliance with Russia that would bring them in, and Russia had an alliance with France and France with Britain. And so like a chain reaction alliances that were supposed to prevent war in fact made the situation much worse, and the war began.

[Augustine2004]

Yet another review of the Buchanan book. http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_07_14/cover2.html

[Lizard]

The fragmentation of the Austro-hungarian Empire was a pretty big thing, it encompassed alot of territory and a large number of different peoples.

Heck. There is still fall out from unresolved issues from WW1. There has recently been civil war, ethnic strife, etc. in the former AH Empire. I actually predicted that this would happen before it happened. On a modern history final I was asked what I thought would happen in the near future as a result of (at that time recent) the collaps of the Soviete Union. I thought that the might of the USSR was holding the Eastern Block countries in check, but with that power gone, civil unrest was soon to follow.

Boy did I call that one right (I guessed a bunch of other stuff I can't remember, but I sure remember the one I pegged).

[Preterist264]

Acctually it wasn't churchill who did the appeasing of hitler it was chamberlain. World War Two happened because of the NAZI ideology that meant that they had to go and move all "inferior races" (jews, slavs) out of eastern Europe to create livingspace for the german peoples.

And England was not really hitler's primary target since he regarded them in his racial scheme as only slightly less then germans.

[FaithThruDoubt]

I think the hardest part of the eccentric Mr. Buchanan's take on WWII to defend would be that Britain was in any way responsible for the Holocaust occurring, quite apart from the difficulty of claiming they were responsible for starting WWII.

[SteveF]

I've had a quick look for reviews of this book. There don't seem to be too many, beyond some from fellow minded travellers. I suppose it's a bit early for scholarly reviews (assuming that relevant academics take it seriously enough in the first place).

[Augustine2004]

Steve F, being a liberal, won't take libertarian scholars seriously in the first place. FYI, they do take the Buchanan book seriously. For the most part, their reviews are favorable.

Steve F proceeds from the assumption that the State does more good than bad. Surely all those wars alone cast that in doubt.

[FaithThruDoubt]

SteveF, I've read that Britain was planning to invade Norway at one time in the late 1930s. What do you have to say about this?

[SteveF]

SteveF, I've read that Britain was planning to invade Norway at one time in the late 1930s. What do you have to say about this?

Not a great deal. I'd never heard that.

[Augustine2004]

I don't know, but I understand Germany conquered Norway partly because it wanted to forestall a British takeover.

[SteveF]

FYI, they do take the Buchanan book seriously. For the most part, their reviews are favorable.

Who takes the Buchana book seriously? I've had a quick look at a few Military History journals and his book doesn't seem to be covered. It may be too early. Either way, I'd prefer to wait for what historians have to say. Revisionist history can be very valuable (e.g. some of A.J.P Taylor's work). On the other hand it is more often the realm of cranks and crazy ideologues.

[FaithThruDoubt]

I don't know, but I understand Germany conquered Norway partly because it wanted to forestall a British takeover.

I might have put it too harshly when I said Britain was planning an "invasion" of Norway. Britain might simply have wanted to position troops there to prevent Germany from sacking Norway's resources and disrupting their shipping. But I don't know for sure.

[SteveF]

I might have put it too harshly when I said Britain was planning an "invasion" of Norway. Britain might simply have wanted to position troops there to prevent Germany from sacking Norway's resources and disrupting their shipping. But I don't know for sure.

There was certainly close collaboration between Norway and Britain once the war got started. Norewgian troops famously trained in Scotland for example.

[Augustine2004]

Steve F, if you would take a look at those categories in this webpage, please. http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227744086&sr=1-1 For example, when I looked, the book was ranked #1316 overall.

[historic salve]

Steve F, being a liberal, won't take libertarian scholars seriously in the first place.
Neither will moderates or conservatives. Seems he's in good company then.

[SteveF]

Heh.

[Augustine2004]

Historic Salve and SteveF, so, you reject Christianity ethics? Why? Maybury's precepts? Why?

[nomad]

I haven't read the original book, and I certainly wouldn't consider it 'blaming' the British, but... I've had Robert Cowley's "What If" for a while, and finally started reading it. One of the chapters covers exactly this. In short, Britain's involvement (which looked highly unlikely to most observers) changed a relatively localized, 100-day, limited engagement into a drawn out, no-holds-barred, worldwide slugfest that completely destroyed the economies of all the major powers. Britain's contribution wasn't enough to help France win, but it was just enough to make it even, and neither side could back down once committed, even when it practically bankrupted them (not that this was anything new really). That's a long stretch from 'blaming' Britain for WWII, of course.

This is the real legacy of WWI IMHO - a completely destroyed Europe (not just Germany) and the rise of American power to fill the (economic) vacuum.

[Philosophickle]

For the record, Pat Buchanan is not a libertarian.

[Augustine2004]

For the record, Pat Buchanan is not a libertarian.That's true, but in international affairs he does tend to be libertarian, if they don't involve economic matters.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I might have put it too harshly when I said Britain was planning an "invasion" of Norway. Britain might simply have wanted to position troops there to prevent Germany from sacking Norway's resources and disrupting their shipping. But I don't know for sure.

I think it's not too far off the mark to say that both had planned independent and as it happened almost simultaneous invasions of Norway, or at least of incursions on Norwegian neutrality. The Brits mined the Norwegian fjords at Narvik first, the idea being to block the all important iron ore shipments from northern Swedish mines to Germany. There may well have been invasion plans too...invade across northern Norway and the ore fields of Sweden ostensibly to help the Finns against Russia one possibility. The Germans for their part wanted to secure this vital resource, and the transport route down the coast of Norway, and incidentally obtain good U-boat and air bases to harass the Home Fleet at Scapa Flow and other points in Britain. They also wanted to take that option out of Britain's hands, securing their northern flank. Overunning Denmark was part of that plan. The Germans and Brits basically ran into one another and the battle ensued, the Germans getting the better. The British did land some men, but they were withdrawn as it became clear there was no way to support them or use them as a base for further operations. That British disaster was followed within weeks by the even larger disaster in France.

[Augustine2004]

I see all this posting about Norway as supporting the contention by some people that Churchill wanted to destroy the Germans even before Hitler came to power. What, violate Norway's neutrality!? Britain!? Churchill!? Sure, argue pragmatism, but ethics can't be dispensed with so easily.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I see all this posting about Norway as supporting the contention by some people that Churchill wanted to destroy the Germans even before Hitler came to power. What, violate Norway's neutrality!? Britain!? Churchill!? Sure, argue pragmatism, but ethics can't be dispensed with so easily.

No. Hitler came to power all the way back in 1933. Norway wasn't even on the horizon then. And wanting to do something is different from doing it. Hitler violated not only Norway and Denmark, but later the neutralities of Holland and Belgium. He violated or not as he needed.

[Augustine2004]

No. Hitler came to power all the way back in 1933. Norway wasn't even on the horizon then. And wanting to do something is different from doing it. Hitler violated not only Norway and Denmark, but later the neutralities of Holland and Belgium. He violated or not as he needed.Is it your contention that Churchill didn't have any desire to destroy the Germans until Hitler came to power?

[Cyrus Johnson]

Is it your contention that Churchill didn't have any desire to destroy the Germans until Hitler came to power?

Well he did also fight the Germans in WWI, although in a different capacity. Not sure what you mean by destroy them. He certainly wanted to defeat them. But then at Versailles it was more the French who wanted to punish the Germans. The British wanted a less punitive solution, if only because a rebuilt Germany would be a useful counterbalance to France on the Continent.

There is no simple black and white here. It wasn't Hitler who destroyed the French Fleet at Oran in 1940, it was Churchill.

[Augustine2004]

Well he did also fight the Germans in WWI, although in a different capacity. Not sure what you mean by destroy them. He certainly wanted to defeat them. But then at Versailles it was more the French who wanted to punish the Germans. The British wanted a less punitive solution, if only because a rebuilt Germany would be a useful counterbalance to France on the Continent.

There is no simple black and white here. It wasn't Hitler who destroyed the French Fleet at Oran in 1940, it was Churchill.I suppose you don't know what the British blockage of stuff bound for Germany, which resulted in starvation deaths, meant.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I suppose you don't know what the British blockage of stuff bound for Germany, which resulted in starvation deaths, meant.

Blockade of stuff from where? There were a great many starvation deaths, but not those initiated by the British. In the early part of the war the British were more concerned with themselves not starving. The Germans on the other hand raised starvation to an art form.

[Augustine2004]

Blockade of stuff from where? There were a great many starvation deaths, but not those initiated by the British. In the early part of the war the British were more concerned with themselves not starving. The Germans on the other hand raised starvation to an art form.You're talking about the British Empire. It was a navy, not army, one. I'm not sure the Germans ever had the sea power (excepting submarines, of course) to initiate a blockage. I think they were reacting to the British blockage anyway. If you have the documentation to prove me wrong, I'll look at it.

[Cyrus Johnson]

You're talking about the British Empire. It was a navy, not army, one. I'm not sure the Germans ever had the sea power (excepting submarines, of course) to initiate a blockage. I think they were reacting to the British blockage anyway. If you have the documentation to prove me wrong, I'll look at it.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what your point is supposed to be. Perhaps if you stated it succinctly. The British did declare war first, and did take some aggressive steps. None however that had any hope of being effective.

[Augustine2004]

I'm having a hard time figuring out what your point is supposed to be. Perhaps if you stated it succinctly. The British did declare war first, and did take some aggressive steps. None however that had any hope of being effective.I did some googling and found this.
Allies attempt to starve Germany to death in 1919
Even after an armistice ended World War I, the rapacious victors continued a devastating blockade of Germany. http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/starvation1919.html
I cannot say how reliable it is, but it does match up with what I'd read before.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I did some googling and found this.
Allies attempt to starve Germany to death in 1919
Even after an armistice ended World War I, the rapacious victors continued a devastating blockade of Germany. http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/starvation1919.html
I cannot say how reliable it is, but it does match up with what I'd read before.

Oh, I see what you're getting at here. Yes, I have to agree, this is more or less what happened, although I don't think its entirely accurate to describe it as trying to starve them to death. Its more like, trying to force them via starvation to come to a final armistace agreement that was favorable to the allies. The French as I mentioned were interested in maximum punishment (and maximum compensation) for the nation that had just invaded them. The British were interested in preserving Rule Britannia on the waves and holding the only stick they had to get a deal they wanted. Since neither had troops in Germany itself, the only weapon they could use to force the issue as rapidly as possible was the blockade, which was not only not relieved after November 11, 1918, but was even strengthened and extended. The blockade wasn't anything new, it was in effect for the duration of the war, and probably responsible for the Kaiser making the fateful decision to use unrestricted submarine warfare, which in turn brought in America as a belligerent. The American tried early to break the blockade, but the French and Brits still wanted it for their own reasons, plus they were suspicious of American intent in Europe. German incompetence during the war made things worse than they needed to be. That doesn't totally excuse the allies though. Not their shining moment. And the punishing conditions in Germany did provide the soil that lead us eventually to Hitler.

As for Churchill himself, he was only directly involved in the blockade in 1914. After that, he had nothing to do with it. In the end, he saw it as necessary to effect an agreement quickly, but made it plain the blockade had to end as soon as possible.

[Augustine2004]

Oh, I see what you're getting at here. Yes, I have to agree, this is more or less what happened, although I don't think its entirely accurate to describe it as trying to starve them to death. Its more like, trying to force them via starvation to come to a final armistace agreement that was favorable to the allies. The French as I mentioned were interested in maximum punishment (and maximum compensation) for the nation that had just invaded them. The British were interested in preserving Rule Britannia on the waves and holding the only stick they had to get a deal they wanted. Since neither had troops in Germany itself, the only weapon they could use to force the issue as rapidly as possible was the blockade, which was not only not relieved after November 11, 1918, but was even strengthened and extended. The blockade wasn't anything new, it was in effect for the duration of the war, and probably responsible for the Kaiser making the fateful decision to use unrestricted submarine warfare, which in turn brought in America as a belligerent. The American tried early to break the blockade, but the French and Brits still wanted it for their own reasons, plus they were suspicious of American intent in Europe. German incompetence during the war made things worse than they needed to be. That doesn't totally excuse the allies though. Not their shining moment. And the punishing conditions in Germany did provide the soil that lead us eventually to Hitler.

As for Churchill himself, he was only directly involved in the blockade in 1914. After that, he had nothing to do with it. In the end, he saw it as necessary to effect an agreement quickly, but made it plain the blockade had to end as soon as possible.Ah, so you see nothing much wrong with starving civilians to death.

As for Churchill having nothing to do with the blockade, was that when he was out of power? I'm not that familiar with WWI, to be frank. Got any reference for Churchill's doing nothing?

Got any reference for the American attempt to lift the blockade?

[Cyrus Johnson]

Ah, so you see nothing much wrong with starving civilians to death.

I said no such thing.

As for Churchill having nothing to do with the blockade, was that when he was out of power? I'm not that familiar with WWI, to be frank. Got any reference for Churchill's doing nothing?

Do you have any for him doing something? You're the one making the claim after all. Churchill was a member of the government, so in that capacity he shared the blame. And he was not opposed to the policy, but he did want it ended as soon as possible. But he wasn't in charge of it at the end of the war.

Got any reference for the American attempt to lift the blockade?

The Americans had little say in the policies of the British and French. However, Herbert Hoover made it plain he did not support the idea of starvation as a weapon of war.

During World War I the Allies used naval blockades to prevent the enemy from getting supplies from other sources, thus turning hunger into a weapon. As a result, the elderly and children suffered the most because soldiers and military support people received priority in the rationing of food and other necessities.

As the driving force behind the CRB (Commission for Relief in Belgium), which provided foodstuffs to occupied Belgium and France with the assurances of the German government that none of these supplies would be used by the German military, Herbert Hoover was in a position to assess the need for humanitarian relief in other war-torn countries as well. Hoover foresaw the likelihood that at war's end most of the population of Europe, winners and losers alike, would face famine and illness, in part a result of the blockade, in part because of the inability to farm and raise livestock. Hoover did not support the blockade. "I do not believe in starving women and children," he later wrote, recalling, "I did not believe that stunted bodies and deformed minds in the next generation were the foundation upon which to rebuild civilization."

SOURCE (http://www.bookrags.com/research/hoover-herbert-aaw-03/)

Now maybe you have a source speaking of American approval of this action?

[Augustine2004]

I said no such thing.I'm sorry, but your post appeared that way to me. So, you're opposed to blockades?
Do you have any for him doing something? You're the one making the claim after all. Churchill was a member of the government, so in that capacity he shared the blame. And he was not opposed to the policy, but he did want it ended as soon as possible. But he wasn't in charge of it at the end of the war.Not going to do much about this now. I've already recommended two books in this thread.
The Americans had little say in the policies of the British and French. However, Herbert Hoover made it plain he did not support the idea of starvation as a weapon of war.I did forget Hoover.

I wonder, where was FDR while all that was going on? He was Assistant Sec'y of Navy for a while.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I'm sorry, but your post appeared that way to me. So, you're opposed to blockades?

It's not an either/or proposition. Blockades can be an effective military tool to minimize loses by containing the enemy. However in this case, the blockade was intact long after the Germans had surrendered, and was targeted specifically at the civilian population and food.

[Augustine2004]

It's not an either/or proposition. Blockades can be an effective military tool to minimize loses by containing the enemy. However in this case, the blockade was intact long after the Germans had surrendered, and was targeted specifically at the civilian population and food.But consider the nature of the State. Its survival is more important to it than protecting the people. Therefore, available food will go to the armed forces first. Therefore, blockades to the degree that they are successful will harm the public first. Not really military. Just anti-civilian.

[Cyrus Johnson]

But consider the nature of the State. Its survival is more important to it than protecting the people. Therefore, available food will go to the armed forces first. Therefore, blockades to the degree that they are successful will harm the public first. Not really military. Just anti-civilian.

Depends how its targeted. If its food and the army has already capitulated, then yeah, I disagree with that. But if its strategic things like chemicals, minerals, fuel, technologies necessary for warfare and you're dealing with an aggressive belligerent, then that's a different story. And who is really more at fault here, the blockader or the aggressive invader?

[Augustine2004]

A selective blockade would be difficult and costly, but I guess it may be acceptable.

[Cyrus Johnson]

A selective blockade would be difficult and costly, but I guess it may be acceptable.

War is going to negatively impact the civilian population somehow, no matter how you slice it. But that's not a license to do whatever without fear of criticism. Another policy we might criticise, terror bombing of cities.

[Augustine2004]

War is going to negatively impact the civilian population somehow, no matter how you slice it.That's why we should be extremely reluctant to enter into war, except for purely defensive reasons. But that's not a license to do whatever without fear of criticism.I had difficulty understanding that. I think, however, you mean something like, "We must not let our fear of criticism deter us from entering into war."

[Cyrus Johnson]

That's why we should be extremely reluctant to enter into war, except for purely defensive reasons.

That's a bit naive. Even Hitler claimed his invasions were 'defensive'. He attacked Russia because Russia was going to attack him first. So he said. He attacked Poland because Poland was attacking Germans. The Japanese were only defending themselves when they invaded Manchuria. Attackers can always try to take the cloak of the defender.

I had difficulty understanding that. I think, however, you mean something like, "We must not let our fear of criticism deter us from entering into war."

What I mean is, that being in war doesn't mean we can't criticize.

[Augustine2004]

What I mean is, that being in war doesn't mean we can't criticize.By 'we' I think you mean the public.

[Cyrus Johnson]

By 'we' I think you mean the public.

Who else would I mean?