Was It ‘The Good War’? - Page 2

Defensor · 04-05-2008, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ausinus

The war was already officially declared. I'm talking about making the phoney war an actual war.

In '39? France was embarrassed enough by its war performance without going on pointless escapades into Germany.

And the war was already officially declared because Britain and France declared it.

Quote:

Why wouldnt they if they had the means to? The Americas are very rich in resources, plus you eliminate a contestant to your supremacy.

And the U.S. has the means to nuke the world, so why hasn't that happened yet?

Should we just keep speculating on baseless what-if hypotheses?

Quote:

Yeah you were an imperialist power. And hegemony was the wrong word to use, sorry. Let me change that to any trace of US power over the seas.

Not really. A few colonies left over from the "Progressive" era, but no true imperial structure in place like that of the European powers. The interwar period was marked by widespread support for non-interventionism among the American people, though unfortunately this attitude did not carry through to the upper echelons of the federal government.

Ausinus · 04-05-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defensor

In '39? France was embarrassed enough by its war performance without going on pointless escapades into Germany.

And the war was already officially declared because Britain and France declared it.

France did in fact had the means to invade Germany and win, even without the fact that Germany had concentrated its military against Poland in the east.

Quote:

And the U.S. has the means to nuke the world, so why hasn't that happened yet?

Cos no one wins a nuclear war.

Quote:

Not really. A few colonies left over from the "Progressive" era, but no true imperial structure in place like that of the European powers. The interwar period was marked by widespread support for non-interventionism among the American people, though unfortunately this attitude did not carry through to the upper echelons of the federal government.

And thank god. I like not speaking german.

Defensor · 04-05-2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ausinus

France did in fact had the means to invade Germany and win, even without the fact that Germany had concentrated its military against Poland in the east.

If the Germans were complete strategic morons, perhaps the French would have stood a chance indeed. But they were stuck in an obsolete mindset doomed to fail otherwise.

Quote:

Cos no one wins a nuclear war.

How is that relevant?

Quote:

And thank god. I like not speaking german.

So don't speak German.

Ausinus · 04-05-2008, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defensor

If the Germans were complete strategic morons, perhaps the French would have stood a chance indeed. But they were stuck in an obsolete mindset doomed to fail otherwise.

Nope, the French had far more troops and far superior equipment. They could have won at that point in the war.

Quote:

How is that relevant?

I was giving you a reason why the US hasnt nuked the world.

Guyker · 04-06-2008, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defensor

Have you read the McCollum Memo submitted by the Office of Naval Intelligence in October 1940? It's suggestions are pretty much what ended up happening in the events leading up to Pearl Harbor. Reads eerily like the PNAC filth written leading up to 9/11.

9. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.
10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.
- H. McCollum

This document is in its first part, an assessment of a situation resulting from aggressive foreign powers acting on their own interests; our alliances and connections with other powers were only a threat to them relative to their aggression against others, and predated that aggression by several decades. You may recall we were allies of France and Britain in WWI. In the second part, it provides a number of pre-emptive and defensive actions to counter the threat posed by those aggressors in the Pacific; it is not a sinister get-us-in-this-war agenda. In hindsight, much of it may have been foolhardy, shortsighted, or poor tactics, but it never rose to the level of forcing any of those countries to attack us.

The record shows each of the Axis nations invaded other countries prior to our entry into the war, with little provocation-Poland, Ethiopia, Manchuria. To the extent it was unnecessary as a war, the only responsibility I see lies with the Axis powers.

Akkaid · 04-06-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

So by starting the war, you prevent the war from happening? Is that like burning the village to save it?

Aussie answered that one better than I could have.

Quote:

You're sure that "plans to invade the western hemisphere would start to circulate?" What basis is there for this speculation?

Hitler had stated several times in his memoirs that conflict between US and Germany was inevitable. He had plans for rockets and planes that could strike US territory long before the US was in the war.

Quote:

If Britain has been taken by Germany, there would most likely have been peace. Hitler would have been very happy if the British would have just agreed to put down their weapons and co-exist in peace at any time from the beginning of the war.

Yeah, then we would have finally answered the 'Jewish Question'.

That would have made at least one American very happy....

Defensor...have you finally gone of the deep end or did you mix some meds?

Defensor · 04-06-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akkaid

Hitler had stated several times in his memoirs that conflict between US and Germany was inevitable. He had plans for rockets and planes that could strike US territory long before the US was in the war.

Hitler never wanted war with the U.S. or any of the Western allies for that matter. This is more baseless speculation. Please prevent evidence of Hitler's plan to invade and conquer the United States of America.

Quote:

Yeah, then we would have finally answered the 'Jewish Question'.

How is the 'Jewish Question' relevant to this discussion?

Defensor · 04-06-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guyker

This document is in its first part, an assessment of a situation resulting from aggressive foreign powers acting on their own interests; our alliances and connections with other powers were only a threat to them relative to their aggression against others, and predated that aggression by several decades. You may recall we were allies of France and Britain in WWI. In the second part, it provides a number of pre-emptive and defensive actions to counter the threat posed by those aggressors in the Pacific; it is not a sinister get-us-in-this-war agenda. In hindsight, much of it may have been foolhardy, shortsighted, or poor tactics, but it never rose to the level of forcing any of those countries to attack us.

The record shows each of the Axis nations invaded other countries prior to our entry into the war, with little provocation-Poland, Ethiopia, Manchuria. To the extent it was unnecessary as a war, the only responsibility I see lies with the Axis powers.

This is a lot of long-winded nonsense about what exactly? The United States government deliberately goaded the Empire of Japan into attacking Americans in order to force us into war. It's a very simple concept called treason.

The British and the French lecturing other countries on the evils of imperialism? Don't make me laugh, please.

Defensor · 04-06-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Nope, the French had far more troops and far superior equipment. They could have won at that point in the war.

The French didn't have the mental capacity to overcome revolutionary German military tactics in 1939. They were stuck in a 1917 mindset, which is exactly why they sat and did nothing until they were invaded decisively in 1940.

Quote:

I was giving you a reason why the US hasnt nuked the world.

But they have the means to. According to you, that's all the proof we need to know about what course of action countries will take.

Dr.Knuckles · 04-07-2008, 02:53 AM

I think it's much easier for a country to look at a war as an example of what TO do, instead of what NOT to do when the war never touched that country.

It's one thing to send a million men overseas to fight, come home to the same home they left, pensions, VA hospitals and families just the way they left them.

For anyone where the war actually was, joining the fight left your familiy destitute, hungry and in constant fear of death. If you were captured your family would not get a letter, they would be homeless and either turn to prostitution and crime or die in a work camp. Every single occupied European fighters lived with this. If I die my family starves. If I am caught, everyone I love will be arrested and put in prison to be tortured or worked to death. Even if we win but I'm wounded, I can no longer support us and the government will not be able to either. We will freeze and starve for the rest of our short lives. Noone will help us becasue there are millions just like us rotting in the street. And every day this war goes on thousands of my own people are being horribly maimed and butchered and there is simply not enough food and medicine to care for any of them.

Nothing against an Aussie or a Candian who risked his life and limbs in a foreign war. But comparing it to the experience of a Pole or a Dutchman. There should be a different word for war at home and war abroad.

Would I gamble my life for my country? Sure. No problem. Would I gamble my kids life? Knowing if I'm caught he'll suffer and die..... nope. That takes balls I don't have.