WWI and WWII Discussion

[2952-0-0]

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.)

Perhaps the Zimmerman telegram is your best bet. Trying to provoke Mexico to attack the US is clearly grounds for war. Keep in mind that the US was already supplying France and Britain with weapons before then.

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?

Assuming the Allies still win, no. The Victor's Justice mentality was very strong. I'm sure if the reverse happened then the Germans would demand even more parts of France and big reparations.

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?

Back then any peace treaty would be one-sided.

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?

Same can be said with all of Africa, the effects of which are still felt today.

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

Yes. And they did to an extent.

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

Attacking a country because it put sanctions on you...that's a new one.

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?

Keep in mind that FDR was providing Britain and Russia with weapons and fuel long before 1941.

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

You seem to think that the Luftwaffe wasn't planning to win air supremacy over Britain. And there were U Boats that landed in North America.

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

It would be unacceptable today to target civilians. But back then everyone did it.

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

No. But Harry Truman wanted to show off his new war gizmo. And not using A-Bombs would certainly have resulted in Soviet troops in Hokkaido and a Japanese Cold War satellite state.

[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.