WWI and WWII Discussion

[JSojourner]

SPC asks...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?

Wow.  Just...wow.  When will the ignorance end?  I have met more people who think we declared war on Germany and Italy because they were totalitarian states, to save the Jews of Europe, to liberate France and to end tyranny and Fascism.

That's not what happened.  We declared war on Germany and Italy because...<drumroll>...they declared war on us first. When someone declares war on you, it's generally thought that a state of war exists.  Now, we can argue til doomsday about what Roosevelt MIGHT have done if Hitler and Mussolini had held their fire.  But they declared war, immediately stepped up their already aggressive sub warfare campaigns and left us with no choice.

We were not and should rarely be in the business of fighting wars to liberate others.  And in those rare circumstances where it may be warranted, they damn well better be the kind of people who demonstrate a willingness to fight WITH us.

Often, people say, "Well, France helped America win freedom from British tyranny".  Sure -- okay, fine.  Couldn't have done it without them.  But we bore the brunt of the fight for years and had a demonstrated committment to liberty.  And then once liberty was secured, the French did not stay for eight years, building green zones around Philadelphia and rooting out British and Tory resistance.

Sorry for the rant.  But I have to wonder if the question wasn't headed in that tired, worn out direction of "Well we fought Hitler to end tyranny so why not Saddam?"  I'm getting pretty friggin' sick of that load of crap.

[JSojourner]

SPC asks...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?

Wow.  Just...wow.  When will the ignorance end?  I have met more people who think we declared war on Germany and Italy because they were totalitarian states, to save the Jews of Europe, to liberate France and to end tyranny and Fascism.

That's not what happened.  We declared war on Germany and Italy because...<drumroll>...they declared war on us first. When someone declares war on you, it's generally thought that a state of war exists.  Now, we can argue til doomsday about what Roosevelt MIGHT have done if Hitler and Mussolini had held their fire.  But they declared war, immediately stepped up their already aggressive sub warfare campaigns and left us with no choice.

We were not and should rarely be in the business of fighting wars to liberate others.  And in those rare circumstances where it may be warranted, they damn well better be the kind of people who demonstrate a willingness to fight WITH us.

Often, people say, "Well, France helped America win freedom from British tyranny".  Sure -- okay, fine.  Couldn't have done it without them.  But we bore the brunt of the fight for years and had a demonstrated committment to liberty.  And then once liberty was secured, the French did not stay for eight years, building green zones around Philadelphia and rooting out British and Tory resistance.

Sorry for the rant.  But I have to wonder if the question wasn't headed in that tired, worn out direction of "Well we fought Hitler to end tyranny so why not Saddam?"  I'm getting pretty friggin' sick of that load of crap.

Even though most people answered that Hitler wouldn't have invaded the United States? If someone tells you they want to fight, but there are several people between you, and you could easily beat them, why bother?

I know I am old and addled.  But...   WTF?

[JSojourner]

>>>> But if there was no way that he could possibly pose a threat to America, then what was the point?<<<<

I am really trying to be nice here.

Who ever gave you the idea Germany was no threat to the USA?  Have you even bothered to read about what was going on over here at the time?  Nevermind the various sabotuers.  What about the unrestricted U-boat war?  American merchant shipping was being attacked by both German AND Italian subs on the high seas.  The Italians stuck mainly to the Mediterranean but the Germans were everywhere.  Germany announced she would sink any ships -- neutral or otherwise -- headed to Great Britain as early as January of 1941.  That was even BEFORE Hitler's declaration of war by 11 months.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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...

[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.