Here's a discussion thread to discuss the two World Wars. Just a question for advocates of U.S. intervention in these wars:
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.)
That depends what you mean by "just war theory". You could, for example, certainly argue that the expansionist tendencies of the Kaiserreich meant that it had to be prevented from winning (and you could here bring up the reason for their being a war on the western front at all).
The Versailles treaty was not
that one sided (certainly not as far as territorial losses were concerned), the area where it was really awful was the reparations scam. But the U.S was, in general, something of a moderating influence at the Peace Conference. Tragically it was also a rather incompetent one.
The war was already over by then (and Germany had quite clearly lost). It's unlikely that the NSDAP could have taken power were it not for the damage done by the reparations scam (which actually links into the Depression; the German economy was in effect propped up by the U.S economy during the '20's. More detail (and accuracy!) can be provided if needed), but it even considering that it was hardly inevitable. You can't go Versailles --> Hitler anymore than you can Depression --> Hitler, Luther --> Hitler, Wagner --> Hitler, Napoleon --> Hitler, or any of the other silly little theories that, astonishingly, are still getting peddled to this day (thinking of the Goldhagen nonsense here).
You mind not know this, but there was trouble in the Balkans before the first world war. You might even say that it's black hand triggered it off. Ahem.
(and what "national" boundaries aren't artificial. Of course many colonial ones are especially bad but...)
They should have opened up their immigration policy to
all people fleeing from the Hitler State.
lol@you for thinking that a valid question.
Because nothing should be done about genocide if it's happening overseas!!!!!!11Idiot
Idiot
I don't think that they were exactly targeted (in the sense that we have, shamefully, become used to today) in the first war. But, yes, it does matter in one sense (one of these days I *will* destroy the statue of Bomber Harris; the man was a war criminal and nothing more and it is shameful that we have a statue to him). Still. Where are you going with this? Trying to imply that the bombings and the crimes of the Nazis were as evil as each other? Don't be stupid.
A conditional surrender was politically unacceptable and might not have been that realistic anyway. I don't think the bombings can be justified as such, but it is
possible to argue that they were the least-worst option, Hiroshima more than Nagasaki.
