WWI and WWII Discussion

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

SPC, you are naive and stupid if you think Hitler was not a threat to the United States in 1941.

Exactly.  And I can't believe someone would say Germany was not a threat just because it couldn't invade. So what?  It could sink our ships.  It could send sabotuers to bomb our installations. Those threats, combined with a declaration of war, completely justified President Roosevelt's response in kind.

I agree. Roosevelt was completely justifed, both in the lend-lease program and their eventual entry.

Hitler was a threat, but the type of threat is important.

[JSojourner]

SPC, you are naive and stupid if you think Hitler was not a threat to the United States in 1941.

Exactly.  And I can't believe someone would say Germany was not a threat just because it couldn't invade. So what?  It could sink our ships.  It could send sabotuers to bomb our installations. Those threats, combined with a declaration of war, completely justified President Roosevelt's response in kind.

I agree. Roosevelt was completely justifed, both in the lend-lease program and their eventual entry.

Hitler was a threat, but the type of threat is important.

I was just making sure SPC didn't try to get away with the lame ass argument --  "We fought Germany because Hitler was evil, so we had every right to fight Saddam Hussein for the same reason."  I hear that silly defense for the Decider's war all the time. 

[SPC]

Wait. When somebody declares war on you, you don't reciprocate? That's new.

When someone threatens you who has no capibility whatsoever on posing a threat to the continental United States, I think it would be a wiser option to simply laugh them off.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you haven't a leg to stand on.[/quote]

Waging wars in self-defense is justified. Provoking Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor, doing nothing to lower casualties beforehand, and then using that as an excuse to get involved in two fronts on opposite sides of the world isn't self-defense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm trying to explain things in terms of money here, since it seems to be what you understand. War costs money.[/quote]

Which is another reason to fight then sparingly. If you're so eager to get involved in a war, then fund it yourself, rather than forcing taxpayers to do it for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I committed a murder to prevent 5 other people from being murdered by some other guy, I think I would be acquitted.[/quote]

And what if the family of the person you murdered doesn't believe that you did it to prevent more murders? Are you going to tell them that the ends justified the means? If Hiroshima and Nagasaki really did prevent further deaths, then why didn't the Japanese thank us for killing 200,000 of their civilians, depite their willing to negociate a peace?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to perceive your point. Back in the day, it was conservatives such as Herbert Hoover and Robert Taft who opposed military agression overseas. The socialists supported the war and even started it.
[/quote]

Oh? Why was Debs imprisoned?
[/quote]

I didn't say all socialists supported the war. What I meant was that socialists such as Hitler and Mussolini started the war. Also, your example of Debs seems to be counterproductive, given that you admire him and yet he agrees with me that WWI didn't have justification for US entry.

[2952-0-0]

When someone threatens you who has no capibility whatsoever on posing a threat to the continental United States, I think it would be a wiser option to simply laugh them off.

Maybe, if this were Tajikistan or Burkina Faso.

But Hitler was completely capable of wreaking havoc on the United States, by attacking US ships or damaging infrastructure (blowing up railways, power lines, etc). Which is what did happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure the financial consequences of an outright invasion by Axis forces (which would have been possible if the Japanese were successful at Midway) would outweigh the costs of fighting.

And I'm not sure funding private mercenaries (like Blackwater or similar goons in years past) is a good idea.

And what if the family of the person you murdered doesn't believe that you did it to prevent more murders? Are you going to tell them that the ends justified the means? If Hiroshima and Nagasaki really did prevent further deaths, then why didn't the Japanese thank us for killing 200,000 of their civilians, depite their willing to negociate a peace?

If you're a general commanding several battalions sometimes you'll have to sacrifice thousands of troops to be abandoned if it increases the chance of damaging the enemy.

A conditional surrender into 1946 or 1947 would definitely have caused Japan to become like Germany, with a Soviet satellite state occupying southern Sakhalin and Hokkaido. Tokyo would have become divided like Berlin. After dividing up Europe with Stalin, I'm sure Truman would not like a repeat in East Asia.

I didn't say all socialists supported the war. What I meant was that socialists such as Hitler and Mussolini started the war. Also, your example of Debs seems to be counterproductive, given that you admire him and yet he agrees with me that WWI didn't have justification for US entry.

Mussolini and Hitler were socialists.

*buzzt*

Wrong answer.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

This is sad SPC, you really know nothing about history.

[Хahar 🤔]

Wait. When somebody declares war on you, you don't reciprocate? That's new.

When someone threatens you who has no capibility whatsoever on posing a threat to the continental United States, I think it would be a wiser option to simply laugh them off.

U-boats? WWI?

Correct. Government shouldn't be starting wars or intervening in them.

Then you haven't a leg to stand on.

Waging wars in self-defense is justified. Provoking Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor, doing nothing to lower casualties beforehand, and then using that as an excuse to get involved in two fronts on opposite sides of the world isn't self-defense.

Provocation? The only provocation that was there was controlling Hawaii.

If the government is restrained to a social contract during peacetime, but all rules are suspended during wartime, where is the incentive for the government to maintain peace?

I'm trying to explain things in terms of money here, since it seems to be what you understand. War costs money.

Which is another reason to fight then sparingly. If you're so eager to get involved in a war, then fund it yourself, rather than forcing taxpayers to do it for you.

You're completely incoherent.

Even though they were willing to negociate a conditional surrender? I'd like to see you hold that up in court, that you commited a murder, but that murder was done to prevent that person from being murdered from another guy. I doubt any judge would acquit you on that basis.

If I committed a murder to prevent 5 other people from being murdered by some other guy, I think I would be acquitted.

And what if the family of the person you murdered doesn't believe that you did it to prevent more murders? Are you going to tell them that the ends justified the means? If Hiroshima and Nagasaki really did prevent further deaths, then why didn't the Japanese thank us for killing 200,000 of their civilians, depite their willing to negociate a peace?

A conditional surrender was not an option. For many reasons.

SPC, notice you're arguing with the forum's socialists who appear hawkish compared to you, who just looks like an idiot, I hope you're joking with all this.

I fail to perceive your point. Back in the day, it was conservatives such as Herbert Hoover and Robert Taft who opposed military agression overseas. The socialists supported the war and even started it.

Oh? Why was Debs imprisoned?

I didn't say all socialists supported the war. What I meant was that socialists such as Hitler and Mussolini started the war. Also, your example of Debs seems to be counterproductive, given that you admire him and yet he agrees with me that WWI didn't have justification for US entry.

Mussolini was a corporatist if there ever was one. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[JSojourner]

This is sad SPC, you really know nothing about history.

This reminds me of other discussion threads I've read where the odd poster pops up and says Adolph Hitler was a liberal leftist because his party name had the word "Socialist" in it.

[Хahar 🤔]

This is sad SPC, you really know nothing about history.

This reminds me of other discussion threads I've read where the odd poster pops up and says Adolph Hitler was a liberal leftist because his party name had the word "Socialist" in it.

Some elements of the NSDAP (not Hitler) were indeed small-s socialist. But when you extend that to Mussolini, you lose all credibility.

[SPC]

When someone threatens you who has no capibility whatsoever on posing a threat to the continental United States, I think it would be a wiser option to simply laugh them off.

Maybe, if this were Tajikistan or Burkina Faso.

But Hitler was completely capable of wreaking havoc on the United States, by attacking US ships or damaging infrastructure (blowing up railways, power lines, etc). Which is what did happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson8.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure the financial consequences of an outright invasion by Axis forces (which would have been possible if the Japanese were successful at Midway) would outweigh the costs of fighting.

And I'm not sure funding private mercenaries (like Blackwater or similar goons in years past) is a good idea.

Who said the government should be funding them? If you, as a private citizen, wish to be involved in a foreign war, then fund it yourself through mercenaries, rather than forcing the entire population to fund it for you through taxation and conscription.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're a general commanding several battalions sometimes you'll have to sacrifice thousands of troops to be abandoned if it increases the chance of damaging the enemy.

A conditional surrender into 1946 or 1947 would definitely have caused Japan to become like Germany, with a Soviet satellite state occupying southern Sakhalin and Hokkaido. Tokyo would have become divided like Berlin. After dividing up Europe with Stalin, I'm sure Truman would not like a repeat in East Asia.[/quote]

Who said that a conditional surrender would have to be in 1946/7? They were willing to do it in 1945, prior to Hiroshima!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mussolini and Hitler were socialists.

*buzzt*

Wrong answer.
[/quote]

Last time I checked, national socialism was a form of socialism. Albeit a different brand of socialism than others, but still socialism.

[Хahar 🤔]

When someone threatens you who has no capibility whatsoever on posing a threat to the continental United States, I think it would be a wiser option to simply laugh them off.

Maybe, if this were Tajikistan or Burkina Faso.

But Hitler was completely capable of wreaking havoc on the United States, by attacking US ships or damaging infrastructure (blowing up railways, power lines, etc). Which is what did happen.

Waging wars in self-defense is justified. Provoking Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor, doing nothing to lower casualties beforehand, and then using that as an excuse to get involved in two fronts on opposite sides of the world isn't self-defense.

FDR *provoked* the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour?

You'll have a better case arguing Czechoslovakia provoked Hitler to attacking the Sudetenland.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson8.html

Someday I'd like to see something other than conspircacy theories from libertarian hack sites.

Which is another reason to fight then sparingly. If you're so eager to get involved in a war, then fund it yourself, rather than forcing taxpayers to do it for you.

I'm sure the financial consequences of an outright invasion by Axis forces (which would have been possible if the Japanese were successful at Midway) would outweigh the costs of fighting.

And I'm not sure funding private mercenaries (like Blackwater or similar goons in years past) is a good idea.

Who said the government should be funding them? If you, as a private citizen, wish to be involved in a foreign war, then fund it yourself through mercenaries, rather than forcing the entire population to fund it for you through taxation and conscription.

We've been through the private armies thing. Whoever has the money gets to do whatever they want. That's as far from freedom as you can get.

And what if the family of the person you murdered doesn't believe that you did it to prevent more murders? Are you going to tell them that the ends justified the means? If Hiroshima and Nagasaki really did prevent further deaths, then why didn't the Japanese thank us for killing 200,000 of their civilians, depite their willing to negociate a peace?

If you're a general commanding several battalions sometimes you'll have to sacrifice thousands of troops to be abandoned if it increases the chance of damaging the enemy.

A conditional surrender into 1946 or 1947 would definitely have caused Japan to become like Germany, with a Soviet satellite state occupying southern Sakhalin and Hokkaido. Tokyo would have become divided like Berlin. After dividing up Europe with Stalin, I'm sure Truman would not like a repeat in East Asia.

Who said that a conditional surrender would have to be in 1946/7? They were willing to do it in 1945, prior to Hiroshima!

It was not an option. Not after the atrocities committed in China, not after the great imperialism of all sorts.

I didn't say all socialists supported the war. What I meant was that socialists such as Hitler and Mussolini started the war. Also, your example of Debs seems to be counterproductive, given that you admire him and yet he agrees with me that WWI didn't have justification for US entry.

Mussolini and Hitler were socialists.

*buzzt*

Wrong answer.

Last time I checked, national socialism was a form of socialism. Albeit a different brand of socialism than others, but still socialism.

Get your facts straight. Socialist Nazis went the way of Otto Strasser. Since you seem to be recommending books, how about Fritz Thyssen's I Paid Hitler? It should dispel any notion that the NSDAP was socialist.

And Mussolini? The corporations were represented in government. If that's socialism, I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

[JSojourner]

SPC says...>>>  Last time I checked, national socialism was a form of socialism. Albeit a different brand of socialism than others, but still socialism. <<<

With apologies to whomever first used this pic, may I simply say...

[Хahar 🤔]

SPC says...>>>  Last time I checked, national socialism was a form of socialism. Albeit a different brand of socialism than others, but still socialism. <<<

With apologies to whomever first used this pic, may I simply say...

And this!

[J. J.]

Who said that a conditional surrender would have to be in 1946/7? They were willing to do it in 1945, prior to Hiroshima!

As I've cited previously, there was serious opposition in the Imperial Japanese Cabinet to surrender after the Nagasaki Bomb was dropped.  Even after that a group of Army officers attempted to seize the Emperor's surrender broadcast and destroy it, invading the Imperial Compound to do it.,  They then tried to assassinate the Prime Minister, Suzuki, and did succeed in burning his residence; he barely escaped.

That does not indicate a predisposition to surrender!

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

SPC says...>>>  Last time I checked, national socialism was a form of socialism. Albeit a different brand of socialism than others, but still socialism. <<<

With apologies to whomever first used this pic, may I simply say...

Yeah, there is a big difference.  National Socialism is responsible for the murder of 10 million.  Multiply that by a factor of 10 and you get close to how many have been murdered by left-wing Socialists.

[Хahar 🤔]

SPC says...>>>  Last time I checked, national socialism was a form of socialism. Albeit a different brand of socialism than others, but still socialism. <<<

With apologies to whomever first used this pic, may I simply say...

Yeah, there is a big difference.  National Socialism is responsible for the murder of 10 million.  Multiply that by a factor of 10 and you get close to how many have been murdered by left-wing Socialists.

Wait, wait. The Soviet Union was not a socialist state. It was an old-fashioned authoritarian dictatorship. The safety net and all just wasn't there. Take the Ukraine famine, for instance. A truly socialist state would have shipped more grain from other areas, not cordoned off the whole Ukrainian SSR.

[JSojourner]

SPC says...>>>  Last time I checked, national socialism was a form of socialism. Albeit a different brand of socialism than others, but still socialism. <<<

With apologies to whomever first used this pic, may I simply say...

Yeah, there is a big difference.  National Socialism is responsible for the murder of 10 million.  Multiply that by a factor of 10 and you get close to how many have been murdered by left-wing Socialists.

At least you can tell right wing from left wing.

You won't get any argument from me about the evils of nearly every Communist dictatorship that has existed.  To hell with all of them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Many, many more than ten million were killed in the War.

[Hash]

SPC, a libertarian hack site isn't a source. I wouldn't put that in my history paper.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh Jesus tapdancing christ, not this sh!t again. (Among the other many other stupid things you have said here... not least that the Third Reich held no threat to America. The Merchant Navy would I'm sure agree with you there.)

Look in terms of political debates the division between "big government" and "small government" is intellectually insignificant, pretty much an American invention probably due to the fact that America never really had a feudal period (unless you count Slave Plantocracy in the south but that was still very different) and has pretty much has had one dominant ideology in its history - Liberal Nationalism.

In Europe however the ideological war was not won until 1989 (for now) and so we realized long ago that the structure of government isn't what is important ideologically as the reasoning and thinking behind it. Fascism was supported by conservatives, monarchists, romantic-era nationalists and elements of the Upper and Middle Classes who saw it as an alternative to communism, Capitalism and democracy having to seen to have 'failed'. It had its roots in Modernism, Romanticism (see nationalism), Futurism, Nietzschean 'superman' ideas, social darwinism, technological and industrial development as progress, eugenics... all recent inventions (in the 1920s) yet it was recast as a new society of order and social certainty against self-expression, equality and intellectual individualism and everything else what we call 'the left' has believed in since forever. Rather fascism from Mussolini's new "Roman Empire" to the Nazis neo-paganism, to the Rexists, Blueshirt and Falangists Catholic social order and hierarchy worship recalled a feudal past (or rather what early 20th Century people thought of as a feudal past), a new Ancien Regime if you will which would pre explicity anti-revolutionary led on by one supreme man to which the nation would march towards. The fact that fascism was corporatist was part of its appeal, social union with social hierarchy. The ideology being society.

And if you believe that is a form of 'socialism' then you dear boy, should leave this forum at once and read up on as many as books by socialists as you can imagine.

(And I'm going to set up links to this post if I ever see that stoopid fascism = left or socialist arguement.)

[TeePee4Prez]

1. Using the just-war theory, what justification did America have to get involved in WWI (and don't say "Lusitania". That was a British ship that had prior warning about a German attack.)

NONE!  As an ethnic Irish Catholic, I would have fired the torpedo!  Thing is I would be torn on the simple fact of preservation of democracy which the Central Powers were clearly against.  To hell with the British!

2. If the U.S. had not intervened in WWI, would it have been more likely that a treaty fairer to the Germans would have ended it, rather than the one-sided Versailles Treaty?

Absolutely.  I don't think Hitler's actions were justified however I could understand why Germany was pissed.

3. Had a less one-sided treaty than Versailles ended the war, would it have been as likely for Hitler to have risen to power on a nationalistic platform?

Hitler would have never rose to power without Versailles.

4. Had the British not drawn artificial boundaries for Eastern Europe and the Middle East, would the conflicts in the Balkans, Palestine, and the Muslim World have been as likely?

Nope.  Anything the British touch, they  up!

5. Should Roosevelt and Chuchill have opened up their immigration policy to Jews and other non-Aryans fleeing Nazi Germany?

Yes

6. Would the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor have happened if Roosevelt had not placed sanctions against Japan?

Yes.  Japan was clearly power hungry.

7. If we needed to declare war against Germany to stop Hitler, why didn't we 'need' to declare war on Russia to stop the genocidal Stalin? Did we 'need' to declare war on France in the 19th Century to stop Napoleon?

Hitler was clearly a threat to Western Democracies, Stalin was not.  As for Napoleon, there was no need to stop him.  I think the world as we know it would have been better off had he prevailed.

8. Given that Hitler couldn't cross the English Channel, how likely would it have been for Hitler to invade the United States?

US involvment and the Lend-Lease Act bailed Britain out.  It would have been a matter of time before they collapsed and I even think Eamon DeValera in Ireland would have chimed in from the west to support Hitler similar to the Croats and Bosnians in the Balkans.

9. Does it matter that German civilians were targeted during both wars?

No.

10. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki really necessary to end the war, since the Japanese were willing to negociate a conditional surrender?

Yes.  The Japanese would not have surrendered otherwise and up to 1 million lives would have been lost if the bombs were not dropped.  This is truly an us vs. them scenario.

[Хahar 🤔]

2. If the U.S. had not intervened in WWI, would it have been more likely that a treaty fairer to the Germans would have ended it, rather than the one-sided Versailles Treaty?

Absolutely.  I don't think Hitler's actions were justified however I could understand why Germany was pissed.

What? You're saying that the US made Versailles worse?

I've already gone through the stupidity of Versailles made Hitler arguments.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Flyers, do some research on Woodrow Wilson's vision of post war Europe and please adjust your statements, and try not to be such a bigoted murderer with your torpedo statement, in case you haven't noticed, it's not "trendy" or "cool" to tow that American IRA bullsh**t, if Ireland has moved past it, so can your fat American ass.

[J. J.]

Flyers, do some research on Woodrow Wilson's vision of post war Europe and please adjust your statements, and try not to be such a bigoted murderer with your torpedo statement, in case you haven't noticed, it's not "trendy" or "cool" to tow that American IRA bullsh**t, if Ireland has moved past it, so can your fat American ass.

Even though I'm an Anglophile, I think Hockey has a point regarding the Lusitania.  However, it was the Zimmerman Note, a real threat, that sparked the US entry into WWI.

[TeePee4Prez]

2. If the U.S. had not intervened in WWI, would it have been more likely that a treaty fairer to the Germans would have ended it, rather than the one-sided Versailles Treaty?

Absolutely.  I don't think Hitler's actions were justified however I could understand why Germany was pissed.

What? You're saying that the US made Versailles worse?

I've already gone through the stupidity of Versailles made Hitler arguments.

I think US backing embolded the other Allied powers.

[TeePee4Prez]

Flyers, do some research on Woodrow Wilson's vision of post war Europe and please adjust your statements, and try not to be such a bigoted murderer with your torpedo statement, in case you haven't noticed, it's not "trendy" or "cool" to tow that American IRA bullsh**t, if Ireland has moved past it, so can your fat American ass.

Believe me some of those weapons would have been turned on the Irish.  You can't deny that.  Ultimately I would still side with the Allies on preservation of democracy, but that would be about it for me.