WWI and WWII Discussion

[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?

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

I don't think that the U.S. Government should be taking sides in a war for money. Private businesses can do that if they want, but the government shouldn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Attacking a country because it put sanctions on you...that's a new one.[/quote]

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

Osama bin Laden's fatwas are meaningless.[/quote]

That's a red herring if I've ever heard one. Someone says attacking a country because of sanctions is ridiculous. I show an example and you call it 'meaningless'?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be unacceptable today to target civilians. But back then everyone did it.[/quote]

Two wrongs don't make a right.[/quote]

They do in war.[/quote]

I find it hard to comprehend how you can oppose the death penalty for murderers but support it for civilians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
[/quote]

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

You want to fight a war with Russia? That's insane.
[/quote]

I don't want to fight a war with Russia. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the argument. The idea that we needed to kill Japanese civilians to keep Soviets out of Japan is preposterous.

[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.)

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

Mexico didn't invade us though. They were simply asked to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.[/quote]

However, the war wouldn't have been as decisive an Allied victory if we didn't enter the war, thus making a balanced treaty more likely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Germany's economic problems were caused by the hyperinflation, which were caused by the Frech occupaton of Ruhr Valley, caused by Versailles.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. [/quote]

There wouldn't be as many territorial conflicts if the British had drawn the boundaries with respect to the inhabiting ethnic groups, rather than how they did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. [/quote]

What other reason would they have for attacking Pearl Harbor? It's not like the Japanese would be so idiotic as to attack one of the most powerful nations in the world for no reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. [/quote]

That wasn't the area where I was comparing them. I was comparing them because all attempted to conquer Europe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Extremely unlikely. The Japanese posed more of a threat. [/quote]

Which was my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's war.[/quote]

Would killing civilians be justified during peace? If you answer no, as any rational person would, then why do the rules change during war? Do all laws get suspended by war, or just murder laws?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
[/quote]

Again, explain why we needed to bomb Japan to stop the Soviets? Also, I'm sure that the 200,000 dead from Hiroshima alone wouldn't have cared whether the U.S. or the Soviets killed them.

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol@you for thinking that a valid question.

Again, I suppose you think that Japan attacked a world power that was sure to provoke war against them for no reason whatsoever? That's incredibly foolish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Idiot[/quote]

Ironic that you're calling me an idiot for that even though that was precisely my point. That should be eually applicable for Hitler.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Idiot[/quote]

Again, exactly my point. Given that Germany couldn't have invaded the United States, there wasn't any real point for the U.S. to participate in the European front of the war.

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.[/quote]

No, I'm just saying that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the bombings weren't as evil as Nazi war crimes doesn't justify them.

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.
[/quote]

It wasn't realistic even though Japan had easked for it. Also, since we were supposedly fighting the war to avenge Japan for the 4,000 deaths at Pearl Harbor, how does it make sense to get back by killing >200,000?

[SPC]

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.

I haven't refered to myself as conservative recently besides my username, and I just keep that so people don't get confused. How can I be considered a white supremacist when I find genocide to be abhorrent? I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist either. I live in a prosperous neighborhood, so I don't know where all the homeless stuff came from, and given that I've never posted a picture of myself, I don't know how you can incorrectly infer that I'm ugly.

[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.

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?

Hitler declared war on America.

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.

I don't think that the U.S. Government should be taking sides in a war for money. Private businesses can do that if they want, but the government shouldn't.

I thought you believed that government shouldn't be doing such things at all.

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.

That's a red herring if I've ever heard one. Someone says attacking a country because of sanctions is ridiculous. I show an example and you call it 'meaningless'?

Yes. Osama bin Laden doesn't believe what he says in his fatwas.

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.

I find it hard to comprehend how you can oppose the death penalty for murderers but support it for civilians.

I don't like war. But when you're in one, normal rules do not apply. If you kill, you're a hero, not a murderer.

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.

I don't want to fight a war with Russia. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the argument. The idea that we needed to kill Japanese civilians to keep Soviets out of Japan is preposterous.

An invasion of Japan would have resulted in many more civilian deaths.

[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...

Mexico didn't invade us though. They were simply asked to.

The US saw the telegram as a provocation. Germany was asking a country to invade a country not officialy at war with Germany.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.[/quote]

However, the war wouldn't have been as decisive an Allied victory if we didn't enter the war, thus making a balanced treaty more likely.
[/quote]

lol

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. [/quote]

There wouldn't be as many territorial conflicts if the British had drawn the boundaries with respect to the inhabiting ethnic groups, rather than how they did.
[/quote]

Read about the Balkan Wars. It's interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. [/quote]

What other reason would they have for attacking Pearl Harbor? It's not like the Japanese would be so idiotic as to attack one of the most powerful nations in the world for no reason.
[/quote]

Whatever it is, it was for sure not 'sanctions'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. [/quote]

That wasn't the area where I was comparing them. I was comparing them because all attempted to conquer Europe.
[/quote]

The US foreign policy in 1815 wasn't the same as they the US foreign policy in 1945.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's war.[/quote]

Would killing civilians be justified during peace? If you answer no, as any rational person would, then why do the rules change during war? Do all laws get suspended by war, or just murder laws?
[/quote]

War is unfair. War does not follow laws or morals. I don't like war, oc FTR.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
[/quote]

Again, explain why we needed to bomb Japan to stop the Soviets? Also, I'm sure that the 200,000 dead from Hiroshima alone wouldn't have cared whether the U.S. or the Soviets killed them.
[/quote]

I just did. If the US hadn't dropped the bomb and invaded, the Soviets would have joined them in the invasion making it a joint American-Soviet victory, like in Germany. And possibly leading to the same situation as in Germany.

[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.)

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

Mexico didn't invade us though. They were simply asked to.

And we didn't declare war on Mexico.

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.

However, the war wouldn't have been as decisive an Allied victory if we didn't enter the war, thus making a balanced treaty more likely.

It wouldn't have been an Allied victory at all in that case.

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.

Germany's economic problems were caused by the hyperinflation, which were caused by the Frech occupaton of Ruhr Valley, caused by Versailles.

Schacht had fixed the inflation by 1928.

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.

There wouldn't be as many territorial conflicts if the British had drawn the boundaries with respect to the inhabiting ethnic groups, rather than how they did.

But then we would have a super-nation through much of the Arab world.

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.

What other reason would they have for attacking Pearl Harbor? It's not like the Japanese would be so idiotic as to attack one of the most powerful nations in the world for no reason.

They did it because Hawaii needed to be a part of their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

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.

That wasn't the area where I was comparing them. I was comparing them because all attempted to conquer Europe.

Stalin attempted to conquer Europe?

And if that was so, why did you call Stalin genocidal?

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.

Which was my point.

Not following you here.

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

That's war.

Would killing civilians be justified during peace? If you answer no, as any rational person would, then why do the rules change during war? Do all laws get suspended by war, or just murder laws?

Most laws do.

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.

Again, explain why we needed to bomb Japan to stop the Soviets? Also, I'm sure that the 200,000 dead from Hiroshima alone wouldn't have cared whether the U.S. or the Soviets killed them.

But the many more who would've died in an invasion would.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

Who looks like an idiot? Me or him?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.)

- There had been enormous pressure on Wilson to act. The sinking of the Lusitania wasn't the only reason given that it happened one month short of two years before the offical US entry into the War. The Luisitana was not the only issue relating to the interception of US merchant shipping. So the extension of the 'just war' to include economic interests could be made.


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?

- Not a chance. The European allies 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?

- The Versailles Treaty left Germany - without significant industry, reliant on international support, and ripe for the hyper-inflation that would make Germany so incredibly vulnerable when the Depression hit. Without those economic conditions Hitler wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

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?

- Of course not. You arbitrarily carve a country up without consideration for socio-cultural concerns... they start fighting? No s**t Sherlock.

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

- Again, of course they should have.

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

- I'm not sure. Japan was desperate to flex her muscles on the international stage. The sanctions levelled by not only the US, but places like Australia as well. Made Japan not only ambitious, but horribly slighted... and desperate.

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?

- Normally, Napoleon declared war on others. Russia conquered in a far less overt way, it was easy to go after Hilter. Hitler's genocidal desires weren't exactly the front page stories - it was a case of a blood-thirsty fascist conquering Western Europe by force.

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

- Hilter was never any physical threat to the US, he was a significant political and economic threat. Plus the alliance issue is always there.

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

- Why wouldn't it matter. The German civilians were not responsible for the actions of their governments and military. The destructions of Coventry and Dresden, and all the others were inexcuseable bloodbaths.

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

- Technically no. However, Truman had been given assurances from Stalin at Potsdam that he would be prepared to move forces to the Pacific to help invade Japan in early August. The military were terrifed of what having a Soviet presence in Japan would mean. They beat Stalin to Japan to stop him making any claims on it. Plus the argument that the Japanese military may not have respected a conditional surrender, and may have fought on regardless without something like an atomic bomb is not completely without merit.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Again, I suppose you think that Japan attacked a world power that was sure to provoke war against them for no reason whatsoever? That's incredibly foolish.

No it was lol at the suggestion that having sanctions imposed on you counts as legitimate provocation for war!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um...

No.

See when I write in italics and have lots of 111111 after !!!!! it means that I am taking the piss. Frankly your position here is beneath contempt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other than to, you know, help to overthrow an astonishingly agressive, evil and bloodthirsty regime. A minor detail for you, I'm sure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Words fail

[The Man From G.O.P.]

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.

Who looks like an idiot? Me or him?

Him, sorry the commas failed me in that one, he looks the fool while the socialists on the forum blast him for it.

[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.)

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

Mexico didn't invade us though. They were simply asked to.

The US saw the telegram as a provocation. Germany was asking a country to invade a country not officially at war with Germany.

Not at all.  The Zimmerman Telegram only called for asking if Mexico would be willing to invade the United States if the United States entered the war against Germany.  Hence Germany was asking a country to invade a country if it ever became officially at war with Germany.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

Who looks like an idiot? Me or him?

Him, sorry the commas failed me in that one, he looks the fool while the socialists on the forum blast him for it.

I really do wonder if he's joking.

[specific_name]

I'll answer this fresh...

1. Using the just-war theory, what justification did America have to get involved in WWI?

None IMO. But the US didn't enter that war because of telegrams, it was strategic. It has to be viewed in the context of our rise to power. First a war with Spain and then direct involvement with Europe. US presence in European politics and economics was inevitable; the fact that it favored the interests of Britain is not surprising. None of this really bothers me, the US is like
any other powerful nation, neither wholly good or evil. 


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?

Less likely. The US was not responsible for the harshness of the treaty, this was more France than anyone. Terms would have been worse for Germany if it was just Britain and France. But they would not have won without US assistance. I could see a stalemate on the western front and a brokered peace settlement in such a case. It would have been too different to guess.

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 essentially came to be at the roll of a die. I don't agree with the idea that he was the result of Versailles. The stock market crash was as much a factor as the treaty was.

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?

The Soviet Union would have dominated Eastern Europe sooner if German did not. The conflicts of the Muslim world have little to do with the partition of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestine thing is separate, and it is obvious that the conflict there occurred because of Britain's actions.

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

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

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

Japan might have concentrated on Indochina longer before conflict with the US broke out. The two empires were clearly in competition and war was inevitable IMO.

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?

This is a strawman right? You know as well as I do that we don't fight wars to get rid of bad guys. It is all about strategy. Germany was a direct threat to the interests of the US. Russia less so. If Germany was out of the way and bothering no one, not threating to burst through Egypt into the Middle East (oil); the US would not have acted against the genocide in German occupied Eastern Europe. Germany was a real danger in the long run if it gained those oil fields, defeated Russia and put the knife to British India. The US prevented it from ever getting that far and threatening its own power. If the US did nothing it would have been boxed in by Pacific Japan and Atlantic Germany. It wasn't a war to stop a bad guy, it was a war to ensure America didn't become a tributary state to the Empire of Japan and/or the German Reich.

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

Well, as I said with my last statement...the US did stand to lose a lot if it failed to act.

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

Yes it matters. It appears to have been effective in shaking the German people's confidence in WWII. Pretty awful stuff, who can call it good and nice anyhow?

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

I don't know what makes you believe they would surrender. Much like your last point, a necessary evil. In the case of Japan, much more necessary than Germany.

[SPC]

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.

[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?

Hitler declared war on America.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.[/quote]

And why were we supplying weapons when we were supposedly neutral?[/quote]

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

I don't think that the U.S. Government should be taking sides in a war for money. Private businesses can do that if they want, but the government shouldn't.[/quote]

I thought you believed that government shouldn't be doing such things at all.[/quote]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be unacceptable today to target civilians. But back then everyone did it.[/quote]

Two wrongs don't make a right.[/quote]

They do in war.[/quote]

I find it hard to comprehend how you can oppose the death penalty for murderers but support it for civilians.[/quote]

I don't like war. But when you're in one, normal rules do not apply. If you kill, you're a hero, not a murderer.[/quote]

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
[/quote]

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

You want to fight a war with Russia? That's insane.
[/quote]

I don't want to fight a war with Russia. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the argument. The idea that we needed to kill Japanese civilians to keep Soviets out of Japan is preposterous.
[/quote]

An invasion of Japan would have resulted in many more civilian deaths.
[/quote]

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.

[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.)

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

Mexico didn't invade us though. They were simply asked to.

The US saw the telegram as a provocation. Germany was asking a country to invade a country not officialy at war with Germany.

The official Wikipedia article on the Zimmerman telegram says that Germany asked Mexico to invade the United States if the United States entered the war! That sounds like more of a reason to stay out that to enter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. [/quote]

What other reason would they have for attacking Pearl Harbor? It's not like the Japanese would be so idiotic as to attack one of the most powerful nations in the world for no reason.
[/quote]

Whatever it is, it was for sure not 'sanctions'. [/quote]

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, given that your mocking me for blaming sanctions as the reason yet you fail to come up with a credible reason yourself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. [/quote]

That wasn't the area where I was comparing them. I was comparing them because all attempted to conquer Europe.
[/quote]

The US foreign policy in 1815 wasn't the same as they the US foreign policy in 1945.[/quote]

Which is what I was complaining about!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
[/quote]

Again, explain why we needed to bomb Japan to stop the Soviets? Also, I'm sure that the 200,000 dead from Hiroshima alone wouldn't have cared whether the U.S. or the Soviets killed them.
[/quote]

I just did. If the US hadn't dropped the bomb and invaded, the Soviets would have joined them in the invasion making it a joint American-Soviet victory, like in Germany. And possibly leading to the same situation as in Germany.
[/quote]

1. The Japanese were willing to make a conditional surrender to the Allies.
2. Even if that would happen otherwise, why didn't the U.S. drop it on a sparsely populated area, rather than a place bound to cause hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths?

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other than to, you know, help to overthrow an astonishingly agressive, evil and bloodthirsty regime. A minor detail for you, I'm sure.

1. Hitler was going to lose the war whether we intervened or not.
2. As I said earlier, you could use the same argument for invading the USSR.
3. Thank you, Al, for actually treating my positions with respect, unlike other posters here.

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hitler was a threat... but not a significant physical threat to the Continental US. In other words, he could never invade. Japan was a far bigger threat to Australia than Germany to the US - our mainland was bombed and we did risk invasion.

On this topic - yes, Hitler's fate was sealed with Operation Barbarossa - the invasion of the USSR. Hitler, with split forces was screwed, the defeat was almost inevitable, it was just a matter of timing.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Ok, time to interject here.... The Nazi's fate was not sealed after the failure to capture Moscow, not by a long shot, tommorrow I complete an in depth study on the European Theatre on WWII, (a year long college course, with the professor putting special emphasis on the eastern front) (seriously this was some serious sh**t, a whole month on Stalingrad)

We do not know what would have happened if there was no American threat in the west, Africa could have gone to Rommel, not to mention Italy never would have been a problem... Hitler committed not huge but significant numbers of SS and SS Panzer Divisions to Italy and France to deal with the Americans, with no American presence the British threat would not have been enough to hold these crack troops in place, so while German offensive power was negligible in the vast stretches of the expanded eastern front, we CANNOT discount their ability to fight the Soviets to a standstill, couple this with the fact that there would be little to no strategic bombing of the resources and factories of Europe, there would have been significant construction of more Pzr. Mk. III's as well as the introduction of the 262 to the east in large numbers rather than the west. Even if this was not enough to blunt the Soviet onslaught completely, imagine an ever more successful superweapons program being directed at the Soviets rather than the British (we would have seen things much more effective than V1's and 2's). Left unmolested by the Americans, the Luftwaffe could have also rebuilt in enough numbers (and with jets coming along quickly) to probably be able to blunt the British to a level where Nordic Heavy Water plants and Dams in Germany would not have been hit in bomber raids, so they would have had a good shot at developing their nuclear capabilities.

Well?

[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.

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?

Hitler declared war on America.

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

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

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.

I don't think that the U.S. Government should be taking sides in a war for money. Private businesses can do that if they want, but the government shouldn't.

I thought you believed that government shouldn't be doing such things at all.

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

Then you haven't a leg to stand on.

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.

I find it hard to comprehend how you can oppose the death penalty for murderers but support it for civilians.

I don't like war. But when you're in one, normal rules do not apply. If you kill, you're a hero, not a murderer.

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.

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.

I don't want to fight a war with Russia. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the argument. The idea that we needed to kill Japanese civilians to keep Soviets out of Japan is preposterous.

An invasion of Japan would have resulted in many more civilian deaths.

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.

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?

[Bacon King]

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

[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.