Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Imperialism during WWII and USSR's aims in the wars aftermath
Options
-
17-06-2009 12:43pm#1You said it! The only "moral" aspect of WWII was in the propaganda that spun and spun - especially afterwords. The documents now coming out of the archives of the Soviet Union, Poland and other "Iron Curtain" countries tell a very different story.
The "Allies" sold out Poland for one - the very reason given for the war, to "save" Poland got shelved and put aside. Poland, who fought alongside the allies, lost thousands in the war, were not even allowed to march in the victory parade in London in 1946. The Poles are rightfully very angry about this and how the "Allies" sold Poland at the end of the war. Churchill gave away large tracks of Polish land to the Soviets. Something that was hardly mentioned for fifty years. The massacre at Katyn is another event that got shoved under the carpet by the "Allies."
Morality? You can call WWII many things but a moral war it was not.
In hindsight it is very easy to judge. non of us can imagine what it was like to endure six years of total war. Yes, the Poles were sold out to an extent, but after six years at war with Nazi Germany, a war with Russia would have caused even more bloodshed and potentially could have had the unthinkable outcome of Russia controlling all of europe.
in terms of morals, I suggest we be a bit less judgemental.0
Comments
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »In hindsight it is very easy to judge. non of us can imagine what it was like to endure six years of total war. Yes, the Poles were sold out to an extent, but after six years at war with Nazi Germany, a war with Russia would have caused even more bloodshed and potentially could have had the unthinkable outcome of Russia controlling all of europe.
in terms of morals, I suggest we be a bit less judgemental.
So the price to be paid in liberating millions is to allow other millions to be subjugated? Yes it is easy to judge, and to an extent that's what history is about. We can't just sit back and reserve criticism because we weren't there and didn't know what it was like (maaaan). Historians must be critical in order to learn from the past.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »So the price to be paid in liberating millions is to allow other millions to be subjugated? Yes it is easy to judge, and to an extent that's what history is about. We can't just sit back and reserve criticism because we weren't there and didn't know what it was like (maaaan). Historians must be critical in order to learn from the past.
Surely context must come into it though.
WWIII breaking out right after WWII?
The Americans would have buggered off straight away and there would have been nothing to stop the Russians reaching the Atlantic in a matter of weeks. In that case, i doubt very much if irish neutrality would have been much of an issue.
What's the old saying, red or dead?0 -
how in god's name did the allies create Stalin? he was in power long before WWII and the ground gained by the Soviets was down purely to the Russian war with Germany. If the west were not involved, eastern europe would still have ended up under Soviet control, or worse, Nazi.
there was no way that after WWII Britan, France and the US were going to go to war with Russia. The US was the only country with anything like the ability but they had no interest in european affairs and to an extent, why should they?0 -
I agree. The reality was that the Soviets held the ground in Poland at that time. What could the British have done, invaded? This whole idea of countries 'liberating' other counties is a misnomer.Fratton Fred wrote: »In hindsight it is very easy to judge. non of us can imagine what it was like to endure six years of total war. Yes, the Poles were sold out to an extent, but after six years at war with Nazi Germany, a war with Russia would have caused even more bloodshed and potentially could have had the unthinkable outcome of Russia controlling all of europe.
in terms of morals, I suggest we be a bit less judgemental.
Countries 'liberate' other countries in the interests of power. The Aliies liberated France, Holland etc to defeat Germany. Similarly when the French, Spanish and even the Pope tried to liberate Ireland from the English / British - these armys were promoting their own states, not on expeditions of liberation. More recently, the first Gulf war was about power (oil control), not about liberating Kuwait.
Any liberation of Poland was always going to be dependent on political nessessity. The only surprise is that people are surprised by that0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 88986
The only option would have been to nuke MoscowFratton Fred wrote:The US was the only country with anything like the ability but they had no interest in european affairs and to an extent, why should they?
IIRC at one stage half the Russian population was in German control, the death toll and military losses were staggering but there was no chance of Peace and Bread style settlement like handing over the Ukraine as happened in WWI.
The 1945 August Storm campaign by the Red Army in China / Korea would have given anyone pause for thought.
Japan forces
1,217,000 men,
5,360 artillery,
1,155 tanks,
1,800 aircraft,
1,215 vehicles
And in Manchukuo
another 200,000 men
While not first rate troops with the best equipment they got steamrollered, the Russian advance was so fast that they had to fly in fuel for the tanks. Logistical problems not suprising given there was a 3,000 mile front , and a US landing at Inchion prevented them taking the whole of Korea.0 -
Advertisement
-
This whole idea of countries 'liberating' other counties is a misnomer.
Countries 'liberate' other countries in the interests of power. The Aliies liberated France, Holland etc to defeat Germany. Similarly when the French, Spanish and even the Pope tried to liberate Ireland from the English / British - these armys were promoting their own states, not on expeditions of liberation. More recently, the first Gulf war was about power (oil control), not about liberating Kuwait.
Any liberation of Poland was always going to be dependent on political nessessity. The only surprise is that people are surprised by that
That is precisely the point I am making. The whole basis for the war - the "liberation" of Poland from Germany was a lie and soon put aside at the end of the war. It was an imperial war fought for the benefit of each nation that participated and not a "good" war fought for pure morality.
Just like our more recent WMD war - the reasons for war are more often changed when the original "reason" or "justification" proves to be false.
As for context - we find much of that when we study the archival material. The cover up of Katyn by the Allies - hey, don't want that getting out. Within the context of the time they knew precisely why it had to be covered up and we ought certainly to judge their actions. The reluctance of any of the allies to help the Warsaw uprising - if Stalin doesn't like it then we don't move attitude. Within the context of the time there is overwhelming evidence that the allies time and time again overlooked Stalin's atrocities. Would have dinted the "good"image of the war.
As for Churchill and the carving up of Poland - within the context of the time that was his perennial solution to many issues and for the sake of world peace ought not to be overlooked and never repeated. Churchill remember gave us Pakistan, Iraq - and was involved in the carving up of Ireland [not to mention his great idea of the Black and Tans]. Thanks but I think there are lessons to be learned from history - and ignoring those lessons is beyond stupid, it is periolious.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Surely context must come into it though.
WWIII breaking out right after WWII?
The Americans would have buggered off straight away and there would have been nothing to stop the Russians reaching the Atlantic in a matter of weeks. In that case, i doubt very much if irish neutrality would have been much of an issue.
What's the old saying, red or dead?
I'm not aware of any evidence that the USSR intended to take control of the whole of Europe, can you provide some?
Also to say the US were not interested in European affairs is clearly false, they were involved in the war, there was the marshall plan, and the cold war, all intimately linked to European affairs.0 -
That is precisely the point I am making. The whole basis for the war - the "liberation" of Poland from Germany was a lie and soon put aside at the end of the war. It was an imperial war fought for the benefit of each nation that participated and not a "good" war fought for pure morality.
how was it an imperial war? what exactly did Britain and France get out of it? both countries bent over backwards to avoid it. "Peace in our Time", remember?
Admittedly neither really cared too much about poland, they were more interested in preventing Hitler from taking over more and more territory unhindered and posing a potential threat to them, but there was nothing that Hitler was after that directly affected them, with the possible exception of Alsace lorraine.As for context - we find much of that when we study the archival material. The cover up of Katyn by the Allies - hey, don't want that getting out. Within the context of the time they knew precisely why it had to be covered up and we ought certainly to judge their actions. The reluctance of any of the allies to help the Warsaw uprising - if Stalin doesn't like it then we don't move attitude. Within the context of the time there is overwhelming evidence that the allies time and time again overlooked Stalin's atrocities. Would have dinted the "good"image of the war.
in fairness, there was a much bigger issue at the time, ie defeating Nazi germany.As for Churchill and the carving up of Poland - within the context of the time that was his perennial solution to many issues and for the sake of world peace ought not to be overlooked and never repeated. Churchill remember gave us Pakistan, Iraq - and was involved in the carving up of Ireland [not to mention his great idea of the Black and Tans]. Thanks but I think there are lessons to be learned from history - and ignoring those lessons is beyond stupid, it is periolious.
Poland wasn't carved up, Churchill had little or no control over what happened to it and i believe that Clement Atlee should take the "Blame for Pakistan rather than Churchill.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »I'm not aware of any evidence that the USSR intended to take control of the whole of Europe, can you provide some?
Also to say the US were not interested in European affairs is clearly false, they were involved in the war, there was the marshall plan, and the cold war, all intimately linked to European affairs.
The Soviets had the clear intention of spreading their influence. A war with the West would have meant Russian forces invading those areas. North Korea springs to mind. The US only adopted the marshall plan to prevent the spread of communism in europe, which was their biggest fear. They were initially reluctant to keep troops in europe until it became evident that Russia was a threat, they then adopted a plan to keep any Russian expansion within europe. it was a line of defence for them, no more.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »how was it an imperial war? what exactly did Britain and France get out of it? both countries bent over backwards to avoid it. "Peace in our Time", remember?
The biggest imperialist of them all was Churchill and he was literally gunning for war and wanted nothing to do with peace. I haven't got the document in front of me right now but there is a letter written by one of the cabinet wives -recently released - where Churchill is described as clicking his heels in delight at the declaration of war. War was an aphrodisiac for him and he was also furious at the idea of a powerful Germany - Nazi or no. Churchill was the supreme British imperialist who ironically did most to damage the British empire. You are right - the French and the Brits were stupid to get involved. They lost all that they had.Fratton Fred wrote: »Poland wasn't carved up, Churchill had little or no control over what happened to it and i believe that Clement Atlee should take the "Blame for Pakistan rather than Churchill.
Check your history - Churchill changed the Polish borders most significantly. He was the one who originally suggested this at the beginning of the war and it was his Polish border configuration which was adopted at the end. Poland lost a large chunk of her land to the Russians.
The following is from the PBS site on "Behind Closed Doors" -
"At the Potsdam conference in the summer of 1945, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR agreed to new postwar borders for Poland as outlined by Churchill. The Polish people had no say in the matter. After the war, the borders of Poland were reshaped to the specifications set out at Potsdam, leading to a population shift on an enormous scale. While Stalin took Poland’s eastern territories, Poland itself was given “Regained Lands” in the west along the Baltic Coast and in Upper Silesia. In the end, Poland became twenty percent smaller."
http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/in-depth/struggle-poland.html0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »The Soviets had the clear intention of spreading their influence.
A war with the West would have meant Russian forces invading those areas.
I'm sorry but that's an opinion, not evidence. I've never seen any concrete evidence that the Soviets intended to take over the whole of Europe, and unless you can provide some I don't think you're position is very strong.
If you can then great-if you can't then there's no basis for what you're saying.North Korea springs to mind. The US only adopted the marshall plan to prevent the spread of communism in europe, which was their biggest fear. They were initially reluctant to keep troops in europe until it became evident that Russia was a threat, they then adopted a plan to keep any Russian expansion within europe. it was a line of defence for them, no more.
Reluctant, but already involved in Europe for several years at that stage. I'm not concerned with their goal, only in proving that you were incorrect to say they had no interest in European affairs, which I think it is clear at this stage that they had.0 -
Yes I did and also heard about the Stalin’s Gulags, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc. Were we supposed to declare war on the USSR and the Kymer Rouge also ??
There was no small school of thought in 1945 that, yes, it might well be in the best interests to keep going to Moscow (Especially once they had the A-Bomb). Of course, after six years of war in Europe, it was not a particularly appealing prospect, but what should be done, and what the voters want to be done are not necessarily going to be the same thing. The West's inaction in 1956 was not something soon forgotten by either side, for example.
NTM0 -
Surely the whole point of the bomb was to fight wars without having to risk thousands of lives in battle? If as you contend, any hundred lives saved by Ireland's participation is to be valued, why would thousands of lives be risked when America had a weapon like the Atomic bomb?
America didn't actually have many bombs (In 1945 they had built three, and two were used on Japan), so there wouldn't have been much choice but to go on a conventional level. Hence one very good reason for a pause. There would be no particular reason they couldn't drop more bombs on Russia to put them out of the picture in, say, 1946.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »America didn't actually have many bombs (In 1945 they had built three, and two were used on Japan), so there wouldn't have been much choice but to go on a conventional level. Hence one very good reason for a pause. There would be no particular reason they couldn't drop more bombs on Russia to put them out of the picture in, say, 1946.
NTM
Indeed. This (the number of bombs) I was aware of, as I have studied the Manhattan Project, but thank you. Yet if you are quoting a school of thought which contends the Allies should have continued onto Moscow after WWII, obviously this would be occurring in 1945 - if not 1946, as we know the Russian winter is not kind to favouring armies and VE day was in May. VJ was not until September, and it is likely (at least arguable) that any attacks on Russia would not be until after the conclusion of the war in the Pacific. So, say in 1946, why would there be a need to go on a conventional level if "There would be no particular reason they couldn't drop more bombs on Russia to put them out of the picture in, say, 1946." This merely reinforces my previous point - that I think this school of thought must have been quite small. IMO, America would not have attacked Russia either on land or from the air after WWII.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »I'm sorry but that's an opinion, not evidence. I've never seen any concrete evidence that the Soviets intended to take over the whole of Europe, and unless you can provide some I don't think you're position is very strong.
If you can then great-if you can't then there's no basis for what you're saying.
the fact they never left any country they "Liberated" is surely proof enough? if the allies had declared war on Russia and lost, would Stalin have just decided that "fair enough, they fought, they lost" or would he have taken the opportunity to increase Soviet influence across the whole of europe. They certainly tried in Spain.
The US wanted out of europe after the war, this was always their aim. when it became apparant that Russia was indeed a big threat they reluctantly stayed. OK, they had aninterest, but it was a reluctant one and self serving.brianthebard wrote: »Reluctant, but already involved in Europe for several years at that stage. I'm not concerned with their goal, only in proving that you were incorrect to say they had no interest in European affairs, which I think it is clear at this stage that they had.0 -
The biggest imperialist of them all was Churchill and he was literally gunning for war and wanted nothing to do with peace. I haven't got the document in front of me right now but there is a letter written by one of the cabinet wives -recently released - where Churchill is described as clicking his heels in delight at the declaration of war. War was an aphrodisiac for him and he was also furious at the idea of a powerful Germany - Nazi or no. Churchill was the supreme British imperialist who ironically did most to damage the British empire. You are right - the French and the Brits were stupid to get involved. They lost all that they had.
that still doesn't explain how it was an imperialist war. also, if youcheck your history, the Anglo-Polish alliance was signed by Chamberlain and it was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany.Check your history - Churchill changed the Polish borders most significantly. He was the one who originally suggested this at the beginning of the war and it was his Polish border configuration which was adopted at the end. Poland lost a large chunk of her land to the Russians.
The following is from the PBS site on "Behind Closed Doors" -
"At the Potsdam conference in the summer of 1945, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR agreed to new postwar borders for Poland as outlined by Churchill. The Polish people had no say in the matter. After the war, the borders of Poland were reshaped to the specifications set out at Potsdam, leading to a population shift on an enormous scale. While Stalin took Poland’s eastern territories, Poland itself was given “Regained Lands” in the west along the Baltic Coast and in Upper Silesia. In the end, Poland became twenty percent smaller."
http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/in-depth/struggle-poland.html
interesting debate on the same thing here
From the above-Churchill alone pushed for free elections in Poland. The British leader pointed out that UK "could never be content with any solution that did not leave Poland a free and independent state". Stalin pledged to permit free elections in Poland, but eventually never honored his promise
your points would have credibility if you didn't have an obvious agenda.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »that still doesn't explain how it was an imperialist war. also, if youcheck your history, the Anglo-Polish alliance was signed by Chamberlain and it was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany.
I never suggested that Churchill actually signed the declaration of war - but it was widely known at the time that his was the voice most vocal in calling for it. He had been calling for greater British armament since 1933 - which is why on the actual declaration of war he was immediately put into the cabinet and soon after become the obvious choice for PM.
As for Poland and elections - the minutes of the meetings with the soviets [released in the 1990s] reveal that there was a naive assumption by both the Americans and the British that elections would be held - but when that became a non event they had to let it pass. Were they stupid or naive? One thing is certain they had as one of the “Allies” a guy as treacherous as Hitler and they didn’t want their own people to know this. Would have been bad for the narrative of the good war - and the continued support for it at home.
Churchill's rhetoric to the Polish Government in exile - and he was excellent at rhetoric - about standing by Poland and never allowing them to be overrun and being free and all the other palaver that you can find anytime you look up Churchill - came to absolutely nothing. Just empty words. But their important purpose was to keep the Poles with him in the British armed forces. But the Poles got ditched in the end. And that is my point – the “good” war came to a “bad” end. Wars frequently do – but the job of the “winners” is to spin it all out afterwards so they look like they held the moral high ground. Churchill himself said that this was what he would do - and he did. He wrote his memoirs with the expressed intention of making the allies effort look all good - with no blemishes - or only those few that he chose to reveal.
There is nothing new in how all this pans out – the history of Ireland is chock full of the fight over the Irish narrative. Time and time again, the English, later the British, wrote the history of events in Ireland to support their presence – and more importantly their continued occupation - on this island. It began with Giraldus Cambrensis and never stopped. Those who control the written record know that they control minds and out of that - the events.0 -
There is nothing new in how all this pans out – the history of Ireland is chock full of the fight over the Irish narrative. Time and time again, the English, later the British, wrote the history of events in Ireland to support their presence – and more importantly their continued occupation - on this island. It began with Giraldus Cambrensis and never stopped. Those who control the written record know that they control minds and out of that - the events.
This ^ is what I meant when I wrote this VFratton Fred wrote: »your points would have credibility if you didn't have an obvious agenda.
How have you managed to turn a thread about Irish participation in WWII into a rant about Churchill?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »This ^ is what I meant when I wrote this V
How have you managed to turn a thread about Irish participation in WWII into a rant about Churchill?
You seem to be the one with the problem here – sorry if you don’t like what you are reading here about Churchill and have to – once again - get personal [nothing new for you] but I am sticking to the historic record and I continue to do so…
Ireland's relationship with Britain was at the heart of many political decisions made at the time. The generation of Irish living at the time had harsh memories of how Churchill behaved towards Ireland during the Tan War and during the Treaty negotiations. Churchill embodied the war for Britain – but he did also for Ireland. There was no support in independent Ireland for his imperialist world view.
Churchill attacked Ireland's neutrality in a speech in the most insulting terms at the end of the war – petty thing to do but a marker of how petty the man really was - to the point where de Valera felt it incumbent on himself to answer for the Irish nation. He did so in a radio address to Churchill in 1945 which the generation of Irish living at the time gave overwhelming support to. Copies of de Valera’s speech were made and given out as gifts for years after – even as late as the 1970s you could buy recordings of it in Dublin shops.
That is why – once again with feeling – any discussion about Ireland and WWII involves discussion on the relationship with Churchill and the duplicitous character he was.
Say what you will about Dev - the man had class and showed it when he had to answer Churchill's ungenerous attack on Ireland at the end of the war.
Hear Dev here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNOQ3zQ2F00 -
No I'm afraid that is not proof at all. Please provide a source that shows they had actual plans to continue on past Germany?Fratton Fred wrote: »the fact they never left any country they "Liberated" is surely proof enough? if the allies had declared war on Russia and lost, would Stalin have just decided that "fair enough, they fought, they lost" or would he have taken the opportunity to increase Soviet influence across the whole of europe. They certainly tried in Spain.The US wanted out of europe after the war, this was always their aim. when it became apparant that Russia was indeed a big threat they reluctantly stayed. OK, they had aninterest, but it was a reluctant one and self serving.
The reason why they had an interest was not of concern to me, only that they had one, which they did.0 -
Advertisement
-
brianthebard wrote: »No I'm afraid that is not proof at all. Please provide a source that shows they had actual plans to continue on past Germany?
Other than the fact that World Communism was a stated Marxist-Leninist objective, its impossible to know Stalin's plans because the Russians only selectively open the archives. Interestingly, there is a Russian author called Viktor Suvorov who claims the Soviets were gearing up to attack Germany in 1941 when the Germans caught them on the hop. His supposition is based on Russian deployments, which were massed thinly along the border in an "attack" posture in June 1941. Because of this he claims they were unprepared when the Germans launched Barbarossa and the Germans quickly got behind them (hence their rapid gains and envelopments), whereas if they'd have been in a defensive posture they would have been arrayed in depth. No idea whether its horse**** or not, but its an interesting theory.0 -
Its not necessarily a Stalinist objective though. I take your point about the archives, but I've never seen any real evidence that Russia intended to expand into Western Europe after WWII.Other than the fact that World Communism was a stated Marxist-Leninist objective, its impossible to know Stalin's plans because the Russians only selectively open the archives.
Interesting theory indeed but I would think that Stalin's decimation of the officer class in the army would have not have been part of this plan.Interestingly, there is a Russian author called Viktor Suvorov who claims the Soviets were gearing up to attack Germany in 1941 when the Germans caught them on the hop. His supposition is based on Russian deployments, which were massed thinly along the border in an "attack" posture in June 1941. Because of this he claims they were unprepared when the Germans launched Barbarossa and the Germans quickly got behind them (hence their rapid gains and envelopments), whereas if they'd have been in a defensive posture they would have been arrayed in depth. No idea whether its horse**** or not, but its an interesting theory.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Its not necessarily a Stalinist objective though. I take your point about the archives, but I've never seen any real evidence that Russia intended to expand into Western Europe after WWII.
Not in the Stalin era, they did have more concrete invasion plans in the sixties and these have been confirmed in the archives. Of course I'm sure NATO had similar plans.brianthebard wrote: »Interesting theory indeed but I would think that Stalin's decimation of the officer class in the army would have not have been part of this plan.
That action defied logic even if the Soviet position was a purely defensive one. Or rather it defied logic from an outsider's perspective. I'm sure it made perfect sense to Stalin.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 88986
Did they enter Greece ?Fratton Fred wrote: »the fact they never left any country they "Liberated" is surely proof enough?
They left China , Iran and Austria.
Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, (and Finland) and much of Poland were Russian a generation previously so French and British keeping their empires would not have as much moral high ground there.0 -
The weird thing is that FDR had a blind spot about the Soviets. He couldn't see that the Soviet Union was an empire as well. FDR's view seemed be that if you didn't need a boat to travel around it, it wasn't an empire.0
-
The weird thing is that FDR had a blind spot about the Soviets. He couldn't see that the Soviet Union was an empire as well. FDR's view seemed be that if you didn't need a boat to travel around it, it wasn't an empire.
Though not as bad as McCarthy and some who followed him, I'm sure FDR wanted to see the dissolution of the USSR? A lot of people wouldn't really consider the USSR in imperical terms until after WWI-well I wouldn't anyways.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Though not as bad as McCarthy and some who followed him, I'm sure FDR wanted to see the dissolution of the USSR? A lot of people wouldn't really consider the USSR in imperical terms until after WWI-well I wouldn't anyways.
Yes, FDR would have had a pre WWII world view. He saw imperialism as a colonial land grab issue and the European empires as holding people hostage to their own [British, French, Belgium...] economic interests. His vision was of a world free of the colonial powers with open and free trade and the US playing the dominant role. The emergence of the USSR as a super power was all in the future.0 -
You're right and I hope it didn't seem like I thought he should've been able to see the rise of the USSR as a superpower.0
-
I'm not sure if FDR was blind to the USSR or just obsessed with setting up the UN. Initially he agreed to each of the states having their own vote in the UN, so the USSR could originally have had 14 votes, this was later reduced to just 2. FDR's obsession with setting up the UN as his legacy was one of the reasons Stalin ran amok at the Yalta conference..0
-
Advertisement
-
up to ww11 the usa still had designs on canada,and could not understand why they flew the union flag. they had tried to invade canada and the canadians had beaten them.people in canada are very proud of that,i know i am off topicYes, FDR would have had a pre WWII world view. He saw imperialism as a colonial land grab issue and the European empires as holding people hostage to their own [British, French, Belgium...] economic interests. His vision was of a world free of the colonial powers with open and free trade and the US playing the dominant role. The emergence of the USSR as a super power was all in the future.0
Advertisement