German and US mutual hatred of communism

[Wat Tyler]

I was talking to a friend shortly after holocaust day and she said that if only the US had entered the war in 1939 or 40 the war would have been over quicker and so many lives and in particular jewish lives would have been saved. I could see what she was thinking but could help but see several problems with the idea and tried to explain.
Firstly the timing. I felt that the US would had to have entered soon after Britain and France declared war simply to have the time to get troops to europe to prevent the fall of France and the British being kicked off the continent. I felt 1940 would be cutting it fine assuming the German offensive happened as it did . That , i said to her , is probably the "smallest" problem. As has been mentioned numerous times on here America was isolationist and their military wasn't what it was to become and doesn't warrant much more discussion really. I think she was thinking more of the America military as of 1943.
This lead us to ponder on what may have lead to the US having a much larger military and a more aggressive outward looking stance. They didn't have a crystal ball to know they would one day being at war with Germany and probably by the time such a thing was likely they would have very little time to expand their military. Their obvious opponent it seemed to us was communist Russia. Could the US ave taken the same attitude towards Russia pre war that it did post war ? One thing follows another and there would seem some mutual ground with Nazi Germany . Two right wing nations with a loathing for communism.
If i'm honest i'm not really sure where i'm going with this. Granted there is some mutual ground but i can't really see American and German troops fighting side by side in some alternative Barbarossa for example and i can't see the US supporting Germany without some sort of deal with Britain and France. But how would it change things? Would the US back Germany into attacking Russia? Would they try to turn Japanese eyes towards siberia , no oil sanctions and even aid too. I can't see what would happen to Poland and there is still the question of Hitler's hatred of the jews , would the US try to change his mind in return for helping him with Russia?
As i say i'm really not sure of a number of things but wondered how others may feel how an actively anti communist America pre war would influence events?

[Carl Schwamberger]

I was talking to a friend shortly after holocaust day and she said that if only the US had entered the war in 1939 or 40 the war would have been over quicker and so many lives and in particular jewish lives would have been saved. I could see what she was thinking but could help but see several problems with the idea and tried to explain.
Firstly the timing. I felt that the US would had to have entered soon after Britain and France declared war simply to have the time to get troops to europe to prevent the fall of France and the British being kicked off the continent. I felt 1940 would be cutting it fine assuming the German offensive happened as it did . That , i said to her , is probably the "smallest" problem. As has been mentioned numerous times on here America was isolationist and their military wasn't what it was to become and doesn't warrant much more discussion really. I think she was thinking more of the America military as of 1943.
This lead us to ponder on what may have lead to the US having a much larger military and a more aggressive outward looking stance. They didn't have a crystal ball to know they would one day being at war with Germany and probably by the time such a thing was likely they would have very little time to expand their military. Their obvious opponent it seemed to us was communist Russia. Could the US ave taken the same attitude towards Russia pre war that it did post war ? One thing follows another and there would seem some mutual ground with Nazi Germany . Two right wing nations with a loathing for communism.

No. The US was not 'right wing'. There were conservative factions, there were right wing factions, there were American Facists, there were also US Communits-perhaps a lot more than Facists, Socialists, Liberals in the meaning then-not the current usage. But, the voters of the US, right or left wing, were democratic - that is with the small D, not the party affiliation. What was going on in Facist Europe was anathema to 80% of the US population. Support for Facism came from several groups, the most important of which were some ultra rich like Ford, Irene DuPont, Rockefeller, ect... they were important backers.

.. Would the US back Germany into attacking Russia? Would they try to turn Japanese eyes towards siberia , no oil sanctions and even aid too.

The interventionists or Roosevelt would have a even easier time getting the Embargo Acts over a Japanese attack on the USSR than over the occupation of French Indo China which was not difficult.

To get to a truly 'anti Communist' US you need to reach far back & find some profound PoD decades previous. If you are trying to propose a WI you need to have a solid foundation for it & the Roosevelt Administration, Congress, and US voters of this era is not it. Read the guidelines for the WI section & PM me if you want to discuss it.

[wm]

Hitler didn't fight Russia because he hated communism (which would be highly unreasonable) but because he wanted to build an "empire" at the expense of Russia (which was somewhat reasonable) - he was perfectly ok with the (defeated) USSR existing behind the Urals.
His greatest enemy was France and she was to be defeated first, in his plans anything more was hazy and G-d-willing based.
There was no place in that for the US whatsoever.

[paulrward]

Hello All

This posting is going to get me in a lot of trouble, but I have aquired a new attitude.

Mr. Wat Tyler quoted a friend as saying :

if only the US had entered the war in 1939 or 40 the war would have been over
quicker and so many lives and in particular jewish lives would have been saved.

This is true. However, for many citizens of the USA, and, to a certain extent, the U.S.
Government, saving European Jews wasn't the responsibility of the U.S. Remember: When
the St. Louis ( The Ship of Fools ) showed up, the Roosevelt Administration refused to allow
them to land, and thus the passengers went back to Germany and the Death Camps.

As hard as it may be for some people to admit, there is still a certain amount of Anti-Semitism
in the United States. ( I have myself seen graffitti on a wall which read, " Death to Z.O.G. "
It made me very nervous )

Mr. Schwamberger stated :

No. The US was not 'right wing'. ......... Support for Facism came from several groups,
the most important of which were some ultra rich like Ford, Irene DuPont, Rockefeller, etc...
they were important backers.

and went on to state:

The interventionists or Roosevelt would have a even easier time getting the Embargo
Acts over a Japanese attack on the USSR than over the occupation of French Indo China which
was not difficult.

Mr. Schwamberger may be over-simplifying things a bit - and may be looking through the
lens of history the wrong way.

When the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed, and then the war began a few months later,
many of the Intelligentsia in the U.S. felt betrayed by Stalin. After all, he gave Hitler most
of Poland in return for part of Poland, Rumanian Bessarabia, and Finland. All through 1940,
while Hitler was gobbling up Western Europe, Stalin was busy selling him oil and other strategic
materials.

In addition, the word went out through the Commintern that all the good Communists in
the U.S.and Britain were to oppose the war against Germany ( " Don't send your son to fight
for Singapore..." )

But this was NOT universal in the U.S. A great many U.S. Citizens felt that, after the
First World War, Britain had economically and financially cheated the U.S. through trade
restrictions and War Debt Repayments, and that they would do so again after the Second
World War. In addtion, while Socialism / Communism was popular in the Coastal Urban
areas, and in the Industrial Cities, it was VERY UNPOPULAR in the Rural Midwest, the South,
and the West, where a large portion of the population were land-owning farmers who feared
any thought of the Communist Collectivizaton policies coming to the United States.

For this reason, while FDR was able to push through Lend Lease to Britain, it didn't include
anything for the USSR.

Until June of 1941, and Barbarossa. Then, everything changed. Pete Seeger recalled his
Pro-Nazi record album that he had just released, and began strumming his banjo in a new series
of songs pleading with Roosevelt to get going in the war. Harry Hopkins, in October of 1941,
offered some help to Stalin. But, the first PQ Arctic Convoy set sail in August, 1941, and had
only six merchant ships, all British, with British cargos. ( some of the supplies might have
been from the U.S., but they were being given by the British )

An American writer who was a retired Naval Officer, in a letter to his editor and friend in late
July, 1941, stated, " So, the Nazis are killing the Commies - What Me Worry ? " This was the
opinion of many in the United States. A large portion of the Officer Class in the U.S. Military
was strongly right wing, and would have had no problems whatsoever fighting alongside Germany
to rid the world of the scourge of Marxist Communism. And, as late as a few days before
December 7th, a number of prominent Republicans were starting to look seriously at the
son of a retired Republican Congressman from Minnesota as a possible candidate to oppose
Roosevelt in 1944....

Of course, all this changed on December 7th, and when a few days later, Hitler blundered by
declaring war on the United States, Freewheelin' Franklin was only too happy to oblige him..

As I have stated previously in another thread, it takes a great deal to get the United States
to hoist itself off of its collective butt and into a war.

Mr. Wm stated:

he was perfectly ok with the (defeated) USSR existing behind the Urals.

Actually, a lot of Americans would have been very happy for a great many decades if the
USSR had only existed behind the Urals. Along with a lot of Poles, Czechs, Hungarians,
Rumanians, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, and Finns.

Not everyone loves the Russians. In fact, for some strange reason, most of their neighbors
really hate them....


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Peter89]

he was perfectly ok with the (defeated) USSR existing behind the Urals.

Actually, a lot of Americans would have been very happy for a great many decades if the
USSR had only existed behind the Urals. Along with a lot of Poles, Czechs, Hungarians,
Rumanians, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, and Finns.

Not everyone loves the Russians. In fact, for some strange reason, most of their neighbors
really hate them....

Hello Paul,

for Central-Eastern Europe, the alternative of Soviet-Russian influence is not independence and a flourishing civil society with strong and healthy democracies.

The alternative is either German influence or local autocratic systems, which has only one aim, namely, to grab territories from its neighbours, or if the last grab was a bit too successful, to keep territories where there local ethnic population can be oppressed.

I also do not see how it is good to push the borders of the SU to the Urals. How is the western part of the country is going the be governed with more population than, for example Germany?

A quick note: most nations in the world, and all nations in (the history of) Europe, has enmities with its neighbours. Spain, for example, cannot really hold anything against Finland, because they did not have any interactions.

[OpanaPointer]

Some very confused geopolitics in this thread. The US was not homogenous with regard to communism by any means.

[wm]

I don't think it's fair to say the Americans hated communism, they were merely afraid of it.
The Soviets (and especially the Al Qaeda like Comintern) threatened stability of other countries but in this case, the US was quite resilient and there were no reason to be afraid.

[Wat Tyler]

Hello All

This posting is going to get me in a lot of trouble, but I have aquired a new attitude.

Mr. Wat Tyler quoted a friend as saying :

if only the US had entered the war in 1939 or 40 the war would have been over
quicker and so many lives and in particular jewish lives would have been saved.

This is true. However, for many citizens of the USA, and, to a certain extent, the U.S.
Government, saving European Jews wasn't the responsibility of the U.S. Remember: When
the St. Louis ( The Ship of Fools ) showed up, the Roosevelt Administration refused to allow
them to land, and thus the passengers went back to Germany and the Death Camps.

As hard as it may be for some people to admit, there is still a certain amount of Anti-Semitism
in the United States. ( I have myself seen graffitti on a wall which read, " Death to Z.O.G. "
It made me very nervous )

Mr. Schwamberger stated :

No. The US was not 'right wing'. ......... Support for Facism came from several groups,
the most important of which were some ultra rich like Ford, Irene DuPont, Rockefeller, etc...
they were important backers.

and went on to state:

The interventionists or Roosevelt would have a even easier time getting the Embargo
Acts over a Japanese attack on the USSR than over the occupation of French Indo China which
was not difficult.

Mr. Schwamberger may be over-simplifying things a bit - and may be looking through the
lens of history the wrong way.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

Thanks for the replies and i apologise if i've broken forum rules.
I may have gotten a little ahead of myself with thinking about scenerios. As you note the original question was about the US entering the war in 1939 which i felt was unlikely given the state of the military and the isolationism in general. We then sat about considering just what would have made the US more able and fitter to enter the war at the same time as Britain and France. A more anti communist stance just seemed the most li!ely and logical given the timescale and how America was to adopt a similar stance post war. Woodrow Wilson did fear the expansion of revolution although didn't intervene , and Rooservelt opened up relations again but post war the US applied sanctions against Russia in 1948 and banned the American Communist party in 1954. It didn't seem a huge leap for that attitude to come in a little earlier , to us at least although i do feel revolution in China may have prompted those fears , red threat and all that.
Perhaps hatred was the wrong word to use , dislike or as wm says afraid of it. Possibly because i'm not American that fear seems somewhat irrational and national perceptions may play a part in the view of America as right wing. Many europeans view the US as anything but . Even American left wingers we see as centre right at best and when Bernie Sandes was described as a socialist it caused a few smiles..
To be honest once we had considered a " post war US " pre war we were then somewhat stumped as to what it would mean. We could see some common ground with regards to attitudes to the Soviet Union but not really enough for them to become allies or anything close to that and we weren't sure how a more heavily militarized US would influence both Germany and Japan for that matter.

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Mr. Wat Tyler stated :

Perhaps hatred was the wrong word to use , dislike or as wm says afraid of it.

and Mr. Peter 89 stated :

I also do not see how it is good to push the borders of the SU to the Urals.

Here is a quote from an American Politician who, regrettably, was never heard from after 1941,
which sums up what the feelings of the citizens in the central portion of the USA with respect
to WW2 in 1941:

Truman 1941

I think this sums it up fairly well.....

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[wm]

That's creative citing, the entire story, "not too seriously":

[Sid Guttridge]

The premise of this question seems to be founded in Cold War attitudes.

Pre-war US attitudes seem to have been rather more open. There was an American battalion with the Republicans in Spain, but no Nationalist equivalent. All three great left wing Mexican revolutionary muralists, Siqueiros, Orozco and Rivera, were commissioned to produce major public works in the USA in the 1930s.

Cheers,

Sid.

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

Mr. Sid Guttridge stated :

All three great left wing Mexican revolutionary muralists, Siqueiros, Orozco and
Rivera, were commissioned to produce major public works in the USA in the 1930s.

Yes, and in 1934, when Diego Rivera's murals at the Rockefeller Center were revealed to
have Soviet Images embedded in them as a sort of sub-liminal propaganda, Nelson Rockefeller
had them either plastered over or peeled off the walls. ( That's Nelson Rockefeller, 41st
Vice President of the United States. )

Mr. WM stated :

That's creative citing, the entire story, "not too seriously":

and posted an editorial comment from the New York Times. In other words, I provided
a direct quote from an elected U.S. Senator, and Mr. WM has provided the New York Times'
editorial ' spin ' on what Mr. Truman stated.

I believe that what a man actually says is more important than what an agenda-driven
newspaper would like you to believe he really meant.

But that's just me.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi paulrward,

I was particularly struck by the juxtaposition of, ".....when Diego Rivera's murals at the Rockefeller Center were revealed to have Soviet Images embedded in them as a sort of sub-liminal propaganda, Nelson Rockefeller had them either plastered over or peeled off the walls."

and

".....Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere!"

Cheers,

Sid.

[wm]

Although it was his private property and nobody have the right to plaster his voice on other people's properties.

[wm]

and posted an editorial comment from the New York Times. In other words, I provided
a direct quote from an elected U.S. Senator, and Mr. WM has provided the New York Times'
editorial ' spin ' on what Mr. Truman stated.

Your direct quote doesn't say if it was "not too seriously" or not, does it?
But the NYT reporters were there, on the ground and their opinion was - "not too seriously."

Additionally, his biographer David McCullough writes that although the statement was inappropriate it meant nothing, Truman was alone in this, didn't represent anybody by saying that.

Thinking about it, the idea that "both of the totalitarian States will be crushed in combat" wasn't a bad one, and actually morally correct although impossible politically (and practically too.)
The number of victims would be more or less the same but there would be no Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and the immense sufferings it brought.
There would be no communist China, North Korea, communist Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge, Albania.
That's actually up to 100 million saved lives! - lives destroyed by the communists in our reality.