WWI and WWII Discussion

[SPC]

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.)
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?
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?
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?
5. Should Roosevelt and Chuchill have opened up their immigration policy to Jews and other non-Aryans fleeing Nazi Germany?
6. Would the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor have happened if Roosevelt had not placed sanctions against Japan?
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?
8. Given that Hitler couldn't cross the English Channel, how likely would it have been for Hitler to invade the United States?
9. Does it matter that German civilians were targeted during both wars?
10. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki really necessary to end the war, since the Japanese were willing to negociate a conditional surrender?

[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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.)'

Zimmermann Telegram.

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?

No. On the contrary, it would've been much worse.

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?

It wouldn't have made much of a difference. I've read so much on this, I now consider myself an expert. It was the Great Depression that sent Hitler into office.

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?

Was there any other way?

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

This is irrelevant, but yes.

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

The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere did not worry about such things as sanctions.

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?

We needed to declare war on Germany because they were allied with Japan. We didn't need to declare war on Russia because it's insanely stupid to declare war on Russia. We didn't need to declare war on Napoleonic France because Napoleonic France was not a bad thing.

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

Hitler? Unlikely. Tojo? Entirely possible.

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

Such is the nature of war.

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

Do you want a Japan on the lines of Korea?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Actually the Zimmermann Telegram had nothing about trying to launch a preëmptive Mexican War.  It was an effort to try and get the Mexicans to declare war on the United States in the event of American entry into the war.  What made the Zimmerman Telegram obnoxious was that it was sent from by American diplomatic cable from Berlin to Washington for retransmission to Mexico City.  The Americans had extended the Germans the privilege of sending messages via American cables so as to keep the lines of communications open in hopes of being a channel for peace negotiations.

However, if just war principals are being applied, the United States should have gone to war with the United Kingdom in 1914 over its mining of international waters in contravention of the laws of war.

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.

Perhaps, but without U.S. entry, I'm fairly certain that the Allies would have lost.  Given the strength of the Royal Navy, I'm fairly certain that the Germans would have sought a peace that imposed few demands on the Western Allies beyond cession of some African colonies.

The Treaty pf Brest-Litovsk gave the Central Powers more than enough European territory yo concern themselves with.

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.

Agreed.  However, France and Russia could easily have become the home of a Hitler-type.  With a victorious Germany, Gefreiter Hitler himself may well have stayed in the army and risen to the rank of Feldwebel.

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.

Not only that, but in World War II, the United States had war declared on it first, not the other way around.

10. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki really necessary to end the war, since the Japanese were willing to negotiate 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.

Yes.  There was no way that accepting a conditional surrender was an option politically for the Allies in 1945.

[jokerman]

10. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki really necessary to end the war, since the Japanese were willing to negotiate 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.

Yes.  There was no way that accepting a conditional surrender was an option politically for the Allies in 1945.

Correct.  Just about every American remembered Pearl Harbor and wanted to beat the sh**t out of Japan with a stick.  I don't think a conditional surrender achieved without H & N would have been anything close to the surrender actually achieved, and probably would have involved heavy Soviet involvement and thousands of further U.S. casualties.  And this is a conservative scenario.  Imagine the millions of lives lost if we had to undertake a full invasion of Japan.  Furthermore if America had spent billions on atomic weapons to not use them, it would have made the War Department look like a laughing-stock.  Truman needed to save his political capital for the U.N., NATO, Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, etc.., and, fighting traditional isolationist sentiment, he needed a hell of a lot of it.

[jokerman]

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?

First off, in regards to the latter point, I don't see any problem with Napoleon.  Certainly he was somewhere between the two extremes, but I would call him an enlightened opponent of monarchism before I would call him a tyrannical despot.

In regards to the second, as Truman expressed, "if we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible."  Germany was winning overwhelmingly.  And really both Roosevelt and Truman kept at least some faith in Stalin throughout the war, and even a little afterwards, and I don't think we remotely knew the depth of his tyranny.

[Franzl]

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.) depends what you consider just

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? no, it would have been much more one-sided without Wilson being part of it. The French wanted blood.

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? no, it would have been much less probable. Extreme poverty helps fascists..

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? probably not

5. Should Roosevelt and Chuchill have opened up their immigration policy to Jews and other non-Aryans fleeing Nazi Germany? I think so, from a moral viewpoint.

6. Would the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor have happened if Roosevelt had not placed sanctions against Japan? not likely, but that's no justification

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? in the 19th century, we were not concerned with European affairs very much, and the public would have greatly opposed involvement. We didn't attack Stalin because he wasn't invading other countries in Europe. Hitler, however, was actively waging war on our allies. And don't forget, Germany declared war on us first.

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

9. Does it matter that German civilians were targeted during both wars? it matters..but what else could happen?

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

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.)'

Zimmermann Telegram.

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?

No, the Allies would have imposed a much tougher treaty.

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?

Probably; assuming that Versailles led to the economic troubles in the 1920's that helped Hitler gain power.

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?

Yes, these conflicts were bound to happen eventually.

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

Absolutely

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

Probably not in 1941, but Japan would have overreached eventually.

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?

Germany was an ally of a country we went to war with.  We had no reason to declare war on Russia, and war on Napoleon would have been foolish for us.

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

Hitler would not have invaded the US.

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

No; all's fair in love and war.

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

Yes; we cannot have a conditional surrender with Japan; we had to crush them, so they would not attack us again.

[opebo]

Rather than answer in detail, let me explain that both these wars were just fascist elites on both sides fighting each other for advantage.  There was nothing 'just' about it and it is debatable which side was more brutal.

[Franzl]

Rather than answer in detail, let me explain that both these wars were just fascist elites on both sides fighting each other for advantage.  There was nothing 'just' about it and it is debatable which side was more brutal.

haha

[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.

[7,052,770]

Yet again, SPC shows himself to be a joke poster.

[Хahar 🤔]

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?

Probably; assuming that Versailles led to the economic troubles in the 1920's that helped Hitler gain power.

No, it would have been much less probable. Extreme poverty helps fascists..

Please don't give this argument. It's not true. The only thing the inflation did for the Nazis was inspiration to begin the Beer Hall Putsch. And we all know how that turned out.

It was the Great Depression that made the Nazis, not any specifically German economic conditions. Germany's instability made it easier than other places to topple. This was not due to the inflation.

[SPC]

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?

[SPC]

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.

And why were we supplying weapons when we were supposedly neutral?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It didn't happen at the end of the Napoleonic wars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north71.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tell that to Osama bin Laden, whose fatwa against America cites the sanctions against Iraq.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't this a violation of our supposed neutrality? Also, doesn't this give the Japanese a good reason to bomb Pearl Harbor, from their perspective?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that was the case, wouldn't it have made more sense to bomb the Soviets, if at all?

[Хahar 🤔]

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?

Japan would've. And Germany was allied with Japan.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

And why were we supplying weapons when we were supposedly neutral?

Because there was money to be had. I thought you, of all people, what understand that money talks.

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.

It didn't happen at the end of the Napoleonic wars.

Apples and oranges. That was a totally different day and age.

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.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north71.html

To an extent. And there were Americans to be saved.

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.

Tell that to Osama bin Laden, whose fatwa against America cites the sanctions against Iraq.

Osama bin Laden's fatwas are meaningless.

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.

Wasn't this a violation of our supposed neutrality? Also, doesn't this give the Japanese a good reason to bomb Pearl Harbor, from their perspective?

It's all about money.

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.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

They do in war.

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.

If that was the case, wouldn't it have made more sense to bomb the Soviets, if at all?

You want to fight a war with Russia? That's insane.

[Hash]

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.)

The Zimmermann telegram of course. If you don't know about that one, then uhm...

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?

Lol no, in fact it would've have been even more one-sided. The US was the most moderate of the Allies in terms on the Versaille treaty.

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?

The Versaille treaty played a part oc, but the Great Depression was a large cause of his rise.

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?

Do you expect that the Hashemites would've been able to set up an Arab state that is actually stable and can survive? The obvious answer is non. Hussein was a lunatic. And blaming the British for all post-war conflicts in those regions is a bit extreme.

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

Yes, but that's a personal opinion question with little relevance.

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

Yes. I doubt Japan attacked Pearl Harbour as a reaction to "the mean Americans placed SANCTIONS on Japan!!! ATTACK!". The Japanese didn't care much for sanctions.

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?

Don't compare Hitler and Stalin to Napoleon. Yes, Napoleon killed people. But he didn't set up death camps and commit mass genocides. And declaring war on the USSR must be the stupidest thing I've heard.

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

Extremely unlikely. The Japanese posed more of a threat.

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

That's war.

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

No. But Truman wanted to win in Japan without the Soviets doing anything. If he hadn't chosen to drop the bomb, the USSR would've invaded Japan and the victory would've been a joint US-USSR victory, which the Americans couldn't accept.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, but then why did the Depression hit Germany as hard as it did [question mark]. You can't isolate events from each other.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 must be logged in to read this quote.

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...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They should have opened up their immigration policy to all people fleeing from the Hitler State.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol@you for thinking that a valid question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because nothing should be done about genocide if it's happening overseas!!!!!!11

Idiot

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Idiot

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

SPC, it's sad to see you leave the ranks of sanity, please no longer refer to yourself as conservative, you've begun to scarf down that pseudolibertariananarchistwhitesupremacistnationalisocapitalistconspiracy bullsh**t salad that has become so popular amongst ugly unpopular scabs like yourself, I'm sorry that your only friends turned out to be homeless people and drug addicts who think "V for Vendetta" is pure philosophy, I'm sorry your peers include smelly people with dreadlocks and tattoos or people with ponytails and high socks, who think books like "1984" and "BNW" are solid prophecy. I know you're the only "true Americans" left, but please leave the rest of us alone and stop posting.

[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?

[Хahar 🤔]

Does SPC actually like this?

[7,052,770]

Does SPC actually like this?

He's clearly just a characiture of a hardcore Ron Paul man having some fun with us all.

[SPC]

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?

Japan would've. And Germany was allied with Japan.

Okay, then simply fight the war on the Pacific front. Given that Hitler himself posed no direct threat to us, what point was there in fighting in the European front? Hitler was going to lose the war regardless of whether we intervened, why not let him and Stalin kill each other while they're at it?