Re: Economic Warfare--Trade embargo 1940

In article <1171431397.351942.93170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<v1313w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:

You can't be serious. You say that as if it was the US who was determined
to force Germany to abide by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, as if

These points don't have anything to do with Britain's economic
postition in May - Dec. 1940 (which is the period I'm most interested
with.) These points don't have anything to do with the USA's economic
position.

On the contrary, they have a great deal to do with the USA's economic
position: specifically, what the US does with economic and military
power.

The US was not leading any sort of move against Germany. Heck, the
US wasn't leading much of a move against Japan.

Do you seriously think that if Britain had "come to terms" ..... read
'surrendered" to Germany, the the US would have been in a position to keep
Britain out of North Africa or the Middle East?

The USA doesn't want Britain to come to term with Germany like France
came to term with Germany, or Norway came to term, or Denmark, or
Belgium, or the Netherlands, or Poland.

Correct. The question which I think you're missing is what the US
was prepared to do about Germany. The US was, in 1940, very reluctant
to get really seriously involved, although in the May-December period
the US picked one side.

You missed the point that I'm claiming. I'm claiming that in no way
can Britain lead the USA into dropping its hostility towards Germany.

What hostility, in practical terms? The US was perfectly capable of
living with a hostile and aggressive totalitarian state for decades
after WWII. Why would the US go to war with Germany?

In other words, the USA is powerful and completely independ of
Britain.

Not when it comes to hostilities in Europe, the US isn't completely
independent of Britain.

Not only is there the basic fact that the US needed large base areas
near Europe, and relied to a large extent on British strength in the
first year or two of the war for the US, but the US was led into
hostilities with Germany by assisting Britain.

The USA green lights, yellow lights, and red lights in its
own right on crucial matters of trade, politics, finance, on other
matters.

Sure. Nothing about WWII in Europe threatened US independence, and
that's one reason the US entered the war later. Britain was directly
threatened, and the US was not.

I don't think the USA by Dec. 1940 is worried about Vichy becoming a
large and important Axis military partner, and by Dec. 1940 the USA is
not worried about Britain becoming an ally of Germany militarily. If
Britain decides to drop out, the USA will not be building up Britain
and not working to make things happen for it, but the USA will
continue with its hostilies against Germany.

What hostilities against Germany?

It wasn't until September 1941 that the US started a shooting war
with Germany (if limited), and that was in direct support of
British interests. If there is no need to escort convoys to Britain,
then the US doesn't get involved there.

What series of events is the US supposed to go through to wind up at
war with Germany if Britain goes down (which it almost certainly wasn't
going to), and how is the US supposed to wage war against German and
British power?

If Britain were to disappear, and the US were to be determined enough,
and the Axis not organized enough, the US could presumably invade
Morocco (as historically), and by means of tremendous efforts build
North Africa into a base to invade Europe. Whether the US would
carry this out is another question.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@xxxxxxxxxxxx | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

.