Unless there were a bunch of civilians sleeping in the air defense sites targeted I can't imagine that there were a ton of civilians hit. If we get official numbers saying otherwise I'll change my tone.
.. Wouldn't it just be easier if countries cared only about themselves in regards to their own politics? And instead showed each other support when natural disasters struck? (and of course had diplomatic relations in regards to trade and whatever)
Easier? Sure. Better? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Technically, the US had no direct cause to engage Germany in WWII. The US entered the European theater as a matter of political alliances, and not in response to a provocation like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Even so, I don't think anyone would say that America's involvement against Germany wasn't right or necessary.
By and large, I would prefer an America that leaves well enough alone (especially meddling in oil-producing nations.) Still, it's hard to sit here with all of America's wealth and freedom, living an easy life, while turning a blind eye to people and nations that need help. It's not really an easy call to make.
A terrorist is anyone who advocates terror. If I saw 136 cruise missiles coming at my country I would be terrified!
I imagine the sailors and civilians who were stationed at Pearl Harbor in December 1941 were terrified, too. The US has committed no shortage of unsavory, and sometimes truly awful, acts of violence, but I've little sympathy for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war was clearly won, Japan was warned of the consequences in prolonging it, and they still refused unconditional surrender. They called down the thunder and they got it.
@Mark Dygert - please don't attack me, you don't even know me
Bottom line is if Iraq doesn't invade Kuwait, the Gulf War never happens. If 911 and Kuwait never happens, the Afghan/Iraq war never happens.
I know full well we go in to protect oil interests. Never said anything to the contrary so please re-read. Its this fixation of this grand conspiracy all about the two dumbest most incapable presidents we have ever had that gets me.
If Iraq invades Kuwait under Bill Clinton then what? We don't go in? Please, he would have gone in too because the Saudis would have begged him and paid for it. I think you can insert any presidents name and the situation is the same.
I don't know if you guys heard about the back story to the Pearl Harbor incident, but a 5 star general came out and did some whistle blowing. I suggest you guys read some of it.
I don't know if you guys heard about the back story to the Pearl Harbor incident, but a 5 star general came out and did some whistle blowing. I suggest you guys read some of it.
Bottom line is if Iraq doesn't invade Kuwait, the Gulf War never happens. If 911 and Kuwait never happens, the Afghan/Iraq war never happens.
If the US didn't create a monster in Iraq and then abuse it, it would of never of tried to eat the zoo keeper. Just like the Mujaheddin... US foreign policy of love em and leave em played a huge role in creating both problems. They didn't want to stick around and foot the bill for nation building but guess what they're stuck now...
I know full well we go in to protect oil interests. Never said anything to the contrary so please re-read. Its this fixation of this grand conspiracy all about the two dumbest most incapable presidents we have ever had that gets me.
Not stupid, just caught up in policies bigger than either party. Bush toward the end of his 2nd term finally stopped listening to bad advice and found his legs as a president. Too bad it took him 6 years. Obama is pretty much Bush 2nd term, 2.0. Which is surprising given the platform he ran on. Candidate Obama would of never launched missiles at Lybia or stepped up drone attacks on Pakistan.
Also you where quick to brush it off as "conspiracy"...
Bush did the job that a weak ineffective UN-SC would NOT do, but voted unanimously TO do. And Iraq invaded Kuwait, how does that translate into dirty work by pappa Bush? Oh Homer and your myths.
So the UN wasn't railroaded into not verifying the "evidence" that the Bush administration touted as fact. YELLOWCAKE! oh wait that's a lie... Just because they had some "facts" crammed down their throat and they where strong armed into going along doesn't mean the world agreed with Bush about Iraq and was just spineless. That was the line at the time to get past the fact checking and keep the raw emotional needle pointed toward invasion.
What you wrote also reads like the party line of "we're defending Kuwait's sovereignty just like we would defend any other country, ignore what anyone says about oil, its all conspiracy BS".
You can't call the facts conspiracy and sweep it away and hope that the "honorable" intentions shine brighter than the true reasons.
Thanks Icon, sorry I'm not good with my Army/Navy rank terms.
Even now America did almost nothing to help Japan after what happened there (told the troops already situated at the american base to help out). I mean they're more concerned about radiation reaching us and hurting us... That makes me really mad.
Americans are helping but not America, if you catch my drift.
When Katrina hit Kuwait donated 500million, Qatar donated 100million, and UAE donated 200million. Even Cuba and Venezuela helped and they're "hostile territories" according to the US. This was BEFORE Bush told the national guard to do anything...
Feel very sad after reading this stuff.
160 cruise missiles have been shot, 2 of Gaddafi's sons may or may not have been killed.
As far as the cost of the Tomahawk missiles goes. If you have to take out air defenses, would you rather spend the money to send over a missile or risk lives doing it another way? How much money are the lives of people worth?
You're not getting the point man... Who said we have to take out air defenses? Why? I would rather spend the money to be honest... you don't need missiles to live, you need shelter and food/water. Money can buy those things. Missiles destroy them.
I imagine the sailors and civilians who were stationed at Pearl Harbor in December 1941 were terrified, too. The US has committed no shortage of unsavory, and sometimes truly awful, acts of violence, but I've little sympathy for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war was clearly won, Japan was warned of the consequences in prolonging it, and they still refused unconditional surrender. They called down the thunder and they got it.
This is why political threads are always bad here on PC.
You disgusting little cretin, you made me feel sick. Well done.
For the cost of the tomahawk missiles, I learned yesterday that shooting them isn't really increasing our costs. If we didn't shoot them, then eventually they'd have to be replaced. Missiles have an expiration date apparently, so you either shoot em or lose em. Plus, they'd already been paid for, so no additional debt.
edit: however for other costs of the operation like man power and logistics etc, there are certainly costs. I read the entire thing might have cost/will cost 800 million
I think what's more interesting is how in the last decade or two we've gone from having a country that requires a congress to declare war, to just having a president authorize it, and it's done.
I mean... we were doing AMAZING before Bush came in, and we all know that. Clinton was a saint compared to Bush (both) and Obama...
Your right aesir, thanks for the info! You're also right about the Pres. just authorizing it... which is completely illegal by the way (Unless Bush somehow manipulated the congress and thats how he got the authorization to Use Force in Iraq, but who are we kidding, they're almost all alike).
I remember a time when you didn't get massive bullshit at the border of Canada-USA... Ahhh memories. ALL FUCKING GONE, FFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUU!
420,000 people were killed as a result of those blasts. how can you so casually say they deserved it. 20,000 of them were korean slave labour, not to mention the allied POWs and all the Japanese civilians. It was a tragedy. I'm not saying it was or wasn't the only option but it was a very high price to pay.
Aesir: doesn't it cost the US to restock the missiles once they are launched? I doubt the Navy is going to leave itself with nothing to shoot.
That's actually a really good point Aesir. We really do try to get our money's worth with our military, we have to, it's extremely expensive. It's pretty scary, not just in a life or death sort of way. We are fast approaching a future where imperialism isn't a very lucrative business. In the "digital age" you can't "take" prosperity from others, you have to create it with an educated, tech savy populous with a strong work ethic. A populous who feels doing good work is rewarding, all the while the American dream has shifted to getting paid for doing jack d*ck.
Just feels like we're stacking the debt and missile stockpiles too high and things are just going to come crashing down (harder than they have). We don't live in a bubble, we're going to pay for our shortcuts to prosperity, we already are. Money is just that, it doesn't build worthwile infrastructure, provide worthwhile education, or healthy food. This whole nations been so obsessed with obtaining this fictional commodity that they've let everything else go to hell to amass their piles. Sometimes i wish all the american dollars in the world would simply evaporate, too much of it in the wrong hands.
(Not saying "DEATH TO AMERICA!" but our economy could use a "do over")
Looks like Obama (US) is handing the reins over on Libya to Europe, pretty smart on his part, now maybe the middle east can hate someone else for awhile..
We got pretty lax after Clinton, probably because things were so awesome.
Clinton just bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, killing tens of thousands of innocent sudanese who relied on that plant to supply their medication.
420,000 people were killed as a result of those blasts. how can you so casually say they deserved it. 20,000 of them were korean slave labour, not to mention the allied POWs and all the Japanese civilians. It was a tragedy. I'm not saying it was or wasn't the only option but it was a very high price to pay.
Deserve's got nothing to do with it. 60 million people died during WWII, but likely only thousands could be said to have deserved it, if that. Even the typical German or Japanese soldier was just a tool of his government, innocent of anything that should deserve killing.
That said, the atomic bomb scenario is the one the Japanese government chose. This is the closing statement of the Potsdam Declaration, July 26 1945:
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
And here is the reply from the Japanese Prime Minister, July 27 1945:
We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.
That last quote is what some attribute Truman's decision to use the bombs - the bitter end. Rather than cease the war in July, saving hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, the government of Japan was intent on grinding it out and thus taking as many Allied (mostly American) lives with them as possible by forcing an invasion and hoping for more favorable terms. Rather than allow that, Truman delivered on the utter destruction warned against in the Potsdam Declaration.
Japan was clearly in a no-win scenario by August 1945, but chose to prolong the war anyway. By pursuing that end, they had already decided to throw away their own citizens' lives in an act of defiance by forcing invasion. That's what I have no sympathy for, deliberately extending the war despite inevitable defeat. Japan wanted a bitter end and so they were given one.
This is why political threads are always bad here on PC.
You disgusting little cretin, you made me feel sick. Well done.
Do you feel that the death of a few hundred thousand Americans on top of another half million Japanese in an invasion of Japan is a preferable option? Japan refused surrender - they were still killing Americans in August 1945 and had no intention of stopping until they got their way. Explain to me how a weeks- or months-long invasion of the Japanese mainland by American soldiers, resulting in loss of American lives, is better than ending the war in four days with two bombs.
If you think my acceptance of the atomic bombing is deplorable, here was Plan B. The worst case scenario, done by the US Secretary of War office, was "1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities." Compared to that, compared to the literal deaths of MILLIONS of Japanese, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a mercy.
Do you feel that the death of a few hundred thousand Americans on top of another half million Japanese in an invasion of Japan is a preferable option? Japan refused surrender - they were still killing Americans in August 1945 and had no intention of stopping until they got their way. Explain to me how a weeks- or months-long invasion of the Japanese mainland by American soldiers, resulting in loss of American lives, is better than ending the war in four days with two bombs.
If you think my acceptance of the atomic bombing is deplorable, here was Plan B. The worst case scenario, done by the US Secretary of War office, was "1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities." Compared to that, compared to the literal deaths of MILLIONS of Japanese, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a mercy.
There are tons of problems with this line of thinking.
First off, and most importantly, it's assuming that any of that stuff "had to happen". Nothing has to happen. It happened because people at the time wanted it to. The whole thing was avoidable though, and if there was a more open minded general opinion at the time, it would have been avoided.
Was the oil ban on Japan really necessary? It could be argued, and it has in several historical books, that this move cemented the Japanese entrance into WW2. But the entire war itself was avoidable.
So yeah, they (US-side) go in there, and mess things up so thoroughly as to pretty much guarantee a world-war. Then when things are FUBAR'd they come up with the line of "we can either drop nukes on them, or it's plan-B". So I suppose an argument could be made that the nukes were preferable to a land invasion. But it must be recognized that BOTH those options are bullshit.
The other problem is that it sets a precedent. Because by any stretch of the imagination, if anyone out there does the same thing to us, they're terrorists. 9/11 was a small fraction of the nukes dropped on Japan, and look what that led to. And yet in both cases you have foreigners bombing innocent civilians. So it sets the precedent that when other people do it, it's "terrorism" and when we do it, it's righteous.
Then another problem is the notion that the US is some innocent by-stander in this whole thing. That's just wrong. And again, the whole "give us an excuse to enter the war" thing stretches back to WW1 as well. And if back then the US had avoided entering the war as well, there wouldn't have even been a WW2.
So you have this ridiculous feedback loop. In the good times the US wreaks havoc all over. With military campaigns, sanctions, assassinations, you name it. Then at some point it all backfires and we get dragged into war, then people claim it was inevitable. And this is still happening today! We still put sanctions on countries. We still invade. We still kill people. And it's never inevitable.
Everyone makes the best decisions in hindsight, even then, I think the bomb was the best decision.
Coming up with some "we shouldn't have been at war in the first place" argument is just trite. Its like saying "oh if only hitler had loved jews there wouldn't have been a war". Its a moot fucking point, it is what it is, its not some other fantasy situation that didn't happen, and at the time, dropping the bomb was the best possible way to end the war.
What would you suggest otherwise? Just packing up and going home? You're lacking any sort of context.
Listen, after 70 years of general peacetime and studies on the effects of nuclear radiation, certainly it was a horrendous act. But to loose any sense of history or context of the situation is just foolish.
If your entire argument is "War is bad and I would prefer it never happens", I think most would agree, but its just not realistic, or an opinion that can be applied in hindsight.
I don't buy it. That's like saying that I don't like you, so I'm going to punch you in the face. And you better be thankful that I'm not kicking you in the nuts. What I'm saying is that if I don't like you, that's one thing, but punching you in the face is just bullshit. Even if it's preferable to the nut-kick alternative.
And what do you mean no historical context? I gave you quite a few ones. Again, was the oil ban on Japan necessary? There's no need for that kind of behavior on our part. And it does make things worse down the line. I don't see how one can ignore things like sanctions, and then be surprised when they backfire.
Take WW1 for example. We shouldn't have entered. But okay, we did, did we have to collapse the Habsburgs? Did we have to force two new democracies in Germany and Austria? Both were monarchies before, and there's no way the Habsburgs would have let one like Hitler rise into power. But Woodrow Wilson insisted that Germany and Austria be their own separate Democracies. Not to mention that Poland be its own Democracy as well. Making it essentially a buffer against Russia. Woodrow Wilson not only ensured Hitler's rise, but he handed him Europe on a silver platter.
Talk about historical context.
The bottom line is that all these things stem from our notion that we have the right to meddle in other people's affairs. So then we end up with a face-punch or nut-kick situation later on. I don't see why it's unreasonable for me to ask to avoid those situations to begin with.
There are tons of problems with this line of thinking.
First off, and most importantly, it's assuming that any of that stuff "had to happen". Nothing has to happen. It happened because people at the time wanted it to. The whole thing was avoidable though, and if there was a more open minded general opinion at the time, it would have been avoided.
Was the oil ban on Japan really necessary? It could be argued, and it has in several historical books, that this move cemented the Japanese entrance into WW2. But the entire war itself was avoidable.
So yeah, they (US-side) go in there, and mess things up so thoroughly as to pretty much guarantee a world-war. Then when things are FUBAR'd they come up with the line of "we can either drop nukes on them, or it's plan-B". So I suppose an argument could be made that the nukes were preferable to a land invasion. But it must be recognized that BOTH those options are bullshit.
The other problem is that it sets a precedent. Because by any stretch of the imagination, if anyone out there does the same thing to us, they're terrorists. 9/11 was a small fraction of the nukes dropped on Japan, and look what that led to. And yet in both cases you have foreigners bombing innocent civilians. So it sets the precedent that when other people do it, it's "terrorism" and when we do it, it's righteous.
Then another problem is the notion that the US is some innocent by-stander in this whole thing. That's just wrong. And again, the whole "give us an excuse to enter the war" thing stretches back to WW1 as well. And if back then the US had avoided entering the war as well, there wouldn't have even been a WW2.
So you have this ridiculous feedback loop. In the good times the US wreaks havoc all over. With military campaigns, sanctions, assassinations, you name it. Then at some point it all backfires and we get dragged into war, then people claim it was inevitable. And this is still happening today! We still put sanctions on countries. We still invade. We still kill people. And it's never inevitable.
Of course it happened because the people at the time wanted it to. The only lens through which it's fair to evaluate the decision is the perspective of the combatants in July 1945 and their goals. After nearly four non-stop years of war, with almost half a million soldiers dead, it's unrealistic to think some "open-minded" US general was going to a) think that Japan could have been non-violently compelled to surrender after their total rejection of the Potsdam Declaration and b) he could convince anyone else of that.
I'm not really interested in debating the specifics of what instigated WWII, but the Japanese chose to invade Indochina as part of an Imperial expansion in 1937 - they weren't forced into war the way the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (arguably) did to Weimar Germany.
The notion that the US is some innocent bystander isn't my notion. I didn't say anything about that.
The argument that without US involvement there wouldn't have been a WWII... Let's say you're correct, that the US stays out of the war. You still have the blitz through Poland, the fall of France, the Battle of Britain in Europe, all before 1942. Without the US, there's no D-Day, no stalling the Axis advance, no liberation of concentration camps. Maybe Germany still slows against the USSR (likely), but there's a very good chance Britain falls without US aid and that Jews are almost entirely wiped out. In Asia, meanwhile, the Japanese continue unabated, conquering China and engaging the USSR (possibly to the point of facilitating a successful German offensive.) There are more Rape of Nanking scenarios, maybe a different Bataan 'Death March' as Japan conquers unopposed. And, the coup de grace of it all, the Einstein-Szilard doesn't prompt the Manhattan Project, giving Nazi Germany the exclusive market on nuclear weapons.
There wouldn't have been a WWII. Instead, there would have been separate European and Asian wars, almost certainly both ending with Axis victories. The post-war superpowers would have been the US and USSR, but Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
So it sets the precedent that when other people do it, it's "terrorism" and when we do it, it's righteous.
Everyone who does the attacking feels they're in the "right" or righteous, and the other side feels like they're being terrorized, it's not just the US that feels this way.
I don't want that statement to be confused as an anti-US one. And this thread has strayed far from the original topic...
I don't buy it. That's like saying that I don't like you, so I'm going to punch you in the face. And you better be thankful that I'm not kicking you in the nuts. What I'm saying is that if I don't like you, that's one thing, but punching you in the face is just bullshit. Even if it's preferable to the nut-kick alternative.
No, that's not the comparison at all. We're in a fight and I want to end it. The options are A) I punch you in the face while letting you punch me in the face nearly as hard or I kick you in the nuts and you don't touch me.
The reality is that hundreds of thousands of Japanese were going to die after July 1945 anyway. The Japanese government ensured that by refusing surrender. That's a shitty reality, but it's still reality. There was no consideration in 1945 of just standing around and hoping the fanatic Japanese Empire gave up.
Let's say that you were President Truman, and you opted not to drop the bombs -or- launch an invasion of Japan. How many more American lives would you be willing to let die in battle, holding a stalemate, while waiting for the Japanese to decide they'd had enough? 50,000? 100,000? As the American President, how many of your citizens do you let die in order to save the lives of your enemy? This is not a facetious question, I'm curious what your thought is on how many American deaths are acceptable in a longer Pacific War to avoid both the invasion and nuclear options.
Of course it happened because the people at the time wanted it to. The only lens through which it's fair to evaluate the decision is the perspective of the combatants in July 1945 and their goals. After nearly four non-stop years of war, with almost half a million soldiers dead, it's unrealistic to think some "open-minded" US general was going to a) think that Japan could have been non-violently compelled to surrender after their total rejection of the Potsdam Declaration and b) he could convince anyone else of that.
I'm not really interested in debating the specifics of what instigated WWII, but the Japanese chose to invade Indochina as part of an Imperial expansion in 1937 - they weren't forced into war the way the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (arguably) did to Weimar Germany.
The notion that the US is some innocent bystander isn't my notion. I didn't say anything about that.
The argument that without US involvement there wouldn't have been a WWII... Let's say you're correct, that the US stays out of the war. You still have the blitz through Poland, the fall of France, the Battle of Britain in Europe, all before 1942. Without the US, there's no D-Day, no stalling the Axis advance, no liberation of concentration camps. Maybe Germany still slows against the USSR (likely), but there's a very good chance Britain falls without US aid and that Jews are almost entirely wiped out. In Asia, meanwhile, the Japanese continue unabated, conquering China and engaging the USSR (possibly to the point of facilitating a successful German offensive.) There are more Rape of Nanking scenarios, maybe a different Bataan 'Death March' as Japan conquers unopposed. And, the coup de grace of it all, the Einstein-Szilard doesn't prompt the Manhattan Project, giving Nazi Germany the exclusive market on nuclear weapons.
There wouldn't have been a WWII. Instead, there would have been separate European and Asian wars, almost certainly both ending with Axis victories. The post-war superpowers would have been the US and USSR, but Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Two things:
1) When I say people at the time, I mean the general US public in the years leading up to the wars. (any wars, WW1, WW2, Iraq, all of them). Not people at the time meaning generals once the war had already started.
2) About WW2, sure, all that stuff you said is true. But I think it's incredibly unfair. I'm talking about a larger context here. Without the US, there's no d-day, there's still an invasion of Poland, all that stuff, assuming that the US had been there to fuck up WW1, and then stayed out of WW2. But I'm talking about a principled approach of not meddling in other people's business.
In which case, the US wouldn't have entered WW1. Which THEN means that there wouldn't have even existed a Germany. Which means no Hitler. Which means no invasion of Poland, which means D-day wouldn't have been needed. It also means no economic sanctions on Japan, which means no Japanese involvement in WW2.
All of which spells out clearly that we don't need a face-punch/nut-kick choice.
It's not fair to consider decades of abuse on our part, then all of a sudden stop it, and say "see? it's messed up! we have to do something". To be fair, it needs to be considered in as wide a viewpoint as possible.
Let's say that you were President Truman, and you opted not to drop the bombs -or- launch an invasion of Japan. How many more American lives would you be willing to let die in battle, holding a stalemate, while waiting for the Japanese to decide they'd had enough? 50,000? 100,000? As the American President, how many of your citizens do you let die in order to save the lives of your enemy? This is not a facetious question, I'm curious what your thought is on how many American deaths are acceptable in a longer Pacific War to avoid both the invasion and nuclear options.
But see, I don't want to be Truman. Let me be Wilson, and applying my approach to things there wouldn't have been a WW2.
Wilson basically ensured all of the events of WW2 by entering the US into WW1. Because of his actions (as the commander in chief), the Habsburg house fell, Austria and Germany became Democracies, they elected Hitler, and the whole thing unfolded as we remember it.
People are people and nothing you can do or say will change what they think (case in point arguing with people over the internet). In Hitlers case he was going to do what he was going to do regardless of whether there was a WWI or not.
1) When I say people at the time, I mean the general US public in the years leading up to the wars. (any wars, WW1, WW2, Iraq, all of them). Not people at the time meaning generals once the war had already started.
2) About WW2, sure, all that stuff you said is true. But I think it's incredibly unfair. I'm talking about a larger context here. Without the US, there's no d-day, there's still an invasion of Poland, all that stuff, assuming that the US had been there to fuck up WW1, and then stayed out of WW2. But I'm talking about a principled approach of not meddling in other people's business.
In which case, the US wouldn't have entered WW1. Which THEN means that there wouldn't have even existed a Germany. Which means no Hitler. Which means no invasion of Poland, which means D-day wouldn't have been needed. It also means no economic sanctions on Japan, which means no Japanese involvement in WW2.
All of which spells out clearly that we don't need a face-punch/nut-kick choice.
It's not fair to consider decades of abuse on our part, then all of a sudden stop it, and say "see? it's messed up! we have to do something". To be fair, it needs to be considered in as wide a viewpoint as possible.
Man, I just can't agree with simply saying that "not meddling in other people's business" is inherently the correct way to go. Maybe WWI turns out differently, but maybe not - the US was certainly the most conciliatory of the Treaty of Versailles' signatories, so I don't know that US isolationism would have prevented the problems of the Weimar state.
Regardless, let's say we get into the late 1930s without change. Imperial Japan's business is pillaging China, raping women and killing indiscriminately as part of an expansion effort. You can keep selling them oil for their planes and tanks, or you can meddle in their business via sanctions. Nazi Germany's business is conquering your European trading partners and putting Jews in ovens. You can stand back and watch this happen, or you can meddle in their business by joining Britain in the war.
I think the current United States' agenda for involving itself in international events is wrong. Even the most unabashedly patriotic American can recognize that WMDs in Iraq are pursued but not in North Korea because Iraq has oil, and that civil wars in Libya are meddled and not Rwanda because Libya has oil. They're not moral causes near so much as they are economic causes. But that doesn't mean there aren't moral causes out there, and that the US shouldn't use its power and influence to intervene. NATO intervention in the Bosnian War, for instance. No one should get away with 'ethnic cleansing', not if we can help it. And there's no way I can look at the Axis powers in 1942 and think the United States shouldn't have meddled.
BTW, the connection between Wilson's decisions and the collapse of the Habsburgs is pretty much common knowledge now in history-studies. It's not like I just randomly came up with this shit. I heard about it, read about it, and it makes perfect sense to me.
There's this willful choice being made by people in the west that Hitler is like a hurricane or earthquake. Bound to happen, and unpredictable. The notion that our willful actions may have caused him to happen is uncomfortable at the least. But just because we refuse to believe something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Yeah honestly, I'm quite liberal when it comes to wars, and I haven't really agreed on the US's stance on war since Korea, but to make the argument that we should have just stayed put and let well enough alone during ww2 is insane.
"Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis."
Man, I just can't agree with simply saying that "not meddling in other people's business" is inherently the correct way to go. Maybe WWI turns out differently, but maybe not - the US was certainly the most conciliatory of the Treaty of Versailles' signatories, so I don't know that US isolationism would have prevented the problems of the Weimar state.
Again, you're picking an arbitrary point in time to begin applying the "minding our business" principle. Weimar republic is too late. The house Habsburg wouldn't have collapsed without us.
Regardless, let's say we get into the late 1930s without change. Imperial Japan's business is pillaging China, raping women and killing indiscriminately as part of an expansion effort. You can keep selling them oil for their planes and tanks, or you can meddle in their business via sanctions. Nazi Germany's business is conquering your European trading partners and putting Jews in ovens. You can stand back and watch this happen, or you can meddle in their business by joining Britain in the war.
Yeah, if we got into the 1930s without change, it would have been bad, real bad. Exactly my point though, it's what led up to those years that caused it, not what happened from those years up.
You're taking Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany as a given. I do not. Keep in mind that before 1918 there wasn't even such a thing as a Germany. It was one empire rules by a royal house. The only reason Germany (as we know it today) existed, is because the western side insisted on it after the first war. That's it. That's the only reason. It's far from a given.
I think the current United States' agenda for involving itself in international events is wrong. Even the most unabashedly patriotic American can recognize that WMDs in Iraq are pursued but not in North Korea because Iraq has oil, and that civil wars in Libya are meddled and not Rwanda because Libya has oil. They're not moral causes near so much as they are economic causes. But that doesn't mean there aren't moral causes out there, and that the US shouldn't use its power and influence to intervene. NATO intervention in the Bosnian War, for instance. No one should get away with 'ethnic cleansing', not if we can help it. And there's no way I can look at the Axis powers in 1942 and think the United States shouldn't have meddled.
But see, they give you those moral causes. We don't see the years of abuse the US put on the middle-east. The sanctions, random assassinations, regime changes, etc. What we do see is the blowback from that, we see 9/11. That gives us the moral grounds to go to war.
But I believe we should look at both sides of that coin.
But see, I don't want to be Truman. Let me be Wilson, and applying my approach to things there wouldn't have been a WW2.
Wilson basically ensured all of the events of WW2 by entering the US into WW1. Because of his actions (as the commander in chief), the Habsburg house fell, Austria and Germany became Democracies, they elected Hitler, and the whole thing unfolded as we remember it.
You are saying that if it weren't for the US entering WWI germany wouldn't have surrendered? That seems far-fetched.
If you really want to blame someone other than Hitler for Hitler, which in my humble opinion is a silly way to go about things, you should probably look at the Versailles treaty which was what got his panties in a bunch in the first place. Without a national socialist Germany, it would probably have become international socialist come the early forties. That means a Stalinist Europe and a possible future conflict with America down the line.
Yeah honestly, I'm quite liberal when it comes to wars, and I haven't really agreed on the US's stance on war since Korea, but to make the argument that we should have just stayed put and let well enough alone during ww2 is insane.
That's not the argument. The argument is that we should have stayed put and let well enough alone during WW1, not 2. Had we done that, there would have been no WW2.
I'm not willing to take WW2, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, all of that, as simply a given.
For us to mess things up so thoroughly as to pave the road for WW2, and then sit still, would have indeed been as bad as you say.
What I'm saying is that we should have not paved that road.
You are saying that if it weren't for the US entering WWI germany wouldn't have surrendered? That seems far-fetched.
If you really want to blame someone other than Hitler for Hitler, which in my humble opinion is a silly way to go about things, you should probably look at the Versailles treaty which was what got his panties in a bunch in the first place. Without a national socialist Germany, it would probably have become international socialist come the early forties. That means a Stalinist Europe and a possible future conflict with America down the line.
Without the US entering WW1 there wouldn't have even been a Germany. That's what I'm saying.
It's a historical fact that the west divided Europe into states after WW1. Two of which are Austria and Germany, which before that were one monarchy. And those states were established as Democracies. And what did the German democracy that the west established do first thing? Put Hitler into power.
Well to try and wrangle up a helping of on-topic here...The no-fly zone in Libya has been expanded. I think we can all agree in the hopes that the U.S. does what it's going to do and gets the hell outa there eh?
Good hustle guys *commences round of ass slapping*
Its a historical fact that the defeated nations were divided into democracies, yes. All because of Wilson, hardly.
Weimar germany is the product of some slabs of paper signed in a dining car somewhere in belgium, not Wilsons decisions.
If it were to be Wilsons fault, we first have to assume that the French and British weren't able to poke the belly of the kaiser beyond the point of comfort in their own rite. America did not have that big of an army at that time. Heck the Amiens offensive were conducted by Canadian and Austrailian troops, i.e. the British Empire..
But see, I don't want to be Truman. Let me be Wilson, and applying my approach to things there wouldn't have been a WW2.
Wilson basically ensured all of the events of WW2 by entering the US into WW1. Because of his actions (as the commander in chief), the Habsburg house fell, Austria and Germany became Democracies, they elected Hitler, and the whole thing unfolded as we remember it.
You're casting an awful wide net to get that conclusion. In 1917, Germans decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare in violation of international law, even after Woodrow Wilson had attempted to mediate a settlement to the war. Expecting that this would draw the US into the fight (the Germans knew they were provoking the US), they attempted to create an alliance with Mexico, promising to fund the Mexicans and return to them the territory of Texas and New Mexico if Mexico attacked the United States. Mexico declined, but Germany's intent was clear
After capturing the Zimmerman Telegram with the Mexico offer *and* enduring the sinking of seven non-military merchant vessels by German subs, only then did the US enter the war. Wilson certainly wasn't any kind of warmonger. He kept the US out of the war as long as was realistic.
Great bit from the wikipedia page on the US entry into WWI: "American entry into World War I came in April 1917, after 2½ years of efforts by President Woodrow Wilson to keep the United States neutral. ... Wilson kept the economy on a peacetime basis, and made no preparations or plans for the war. He insisted on keeping the army and navy on its small peacetime bases. Indeed, Wilson refused even to study the lessons of military or economic mobilization that had been learned so painfully across the sea."
Even in the early years of the war, the US traded with both Britain AND Germany, as their respective blockades allowed. But if a foreign power is sinking your civilian ships and seeking allies to attack you, you are right to go to war. Asking Wilson to sit on his hands, foregoing any trade with Europe because German subs were sinking American vessels, is pacifistic to the point of Chamberlain-esque naivete.
Yeah honestly, I'm quite liberal when it comes to wars, and I haven't really agreed on the US's stance on war since Korea, but to make the argument that we should have just stayed put and let well enough alone during ww2 is insane.
Same here. I understand Vietnam as a proxy war against spreading Communism, but it wasn't a moral war and it sure wasn't conducted well. Nearly everything since then has been about controlling natural resources
Same here. I understand Vietnam as a proxy war against spreading Communism, but it wasn't a moral war and it sure wasn't conducted well. Nearly everything since then has been about controlling natural resources
Heh - I clicked on the link. Here's the first review on the page, from Publisher's Weekly:
The Holocaust, the gulags, the Cold War and a death toll exceeding 61,911,000 can all be laid at Wilson's doorstep, contends this sophomoric work in isolationist historiography. Powell, a Cato Institute fellow and author of FDR's Folly, argues that Wilson's intervention in WWI enabled the Allies to defeat Germany and impose a punitive peace settlement that made Germans bitter and antidemocratic, facilitated Hitler's rise, etc. Extendingindeed, almost parodyingNiall Ferguson's contrarian arguments from The Pity of War, he insists that a victorious German Empire would have subsided under its own weight, with Hitler and Stalin remaining unknown malcontents. Powell rehashes his arguments at inordinate length to associate Wilson's policies with subsequent Nazi and Soviet atrocities. When not flaying Wilson, Powell rides Cato's hobbyhorse of libertarian doctrine, sprinkling his chronicle of totalitarian horrors with prim sermons on free trade and laissez-faire economics; the Bolsheviks are thus scolded for their opposition to "consumers freely voting with their money, deciding which quantities, qualities, brands, styles, colors, prices, and so on that they preferred." Powell scores some points criticizing the flimsiness of Wilson's pretexts for intervention. But in using the unforeseen consequences of Wilson's actions as a brief for isolationism, he ends up blaming the 20th-century time line on one man. The result is a tendentious and heavy-handed distortion of history
Replies
Both
Unless there were a bunch of civilians sleeping in the air defense sites targeted I can't imagine that there were a ton of civilians hit. If we get official numbers saying otherwise I'll change my tone.
Easier? Sure. Better? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Technically, the US had no direct cause to engage Germany in WWII. The US entered the European theater as a matter of political alliances, and not in response to a provocation like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Even so, I don't think anyone would say that America's involvement against Germany wasn't right or necessary.
By and large, I would prefer an America that leaves well enough alone (especially meddling in oil-producing nations.) Still, it's hard to sit here with all of America's wealth and freedom, living an easy life, while turning a blind eye to people and nations that need help. It's not really an easy call to make.
I imagine the sailors and civilians who were stationed at Pearl Harbor in December 1941 were terrified, too. The US has committed no shortage of unsavory, and sometimes truly awful, acts of violence, but I've little sympathy for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war was clearly won, Japan was warned of the consequences in prolonging it, and they still refused unconditional surrender. They called down the thunder and they got it.
Bottom line is if Iraq doesn't invade Kuwait, the Gulf War never happens. If 911 and Kuwait never happens, the Afghan/Iraq war never happens.
I know full well we go in to protect oil interests. Never said anything to the contrary so please re-read. Its this fixation of this grand conspiracy all about the two dumbest most incapable presidents we have ever had that gets me.
If Iraq invades Kuwait under Bill Clinton then what? We don't go in? Please, he would have gone in too because the Saudis would have begged him and paid for it. I think you can insert any presidents name and the situation is the same.
Not stupid, just caught up in policies bigger than either party. Bush toward the end of his 2nd term finally stopped listening to bad advice and found his legs as a president. Too bad it took him 6 years. Obama is pretty much Bush 2nd term, 2.0. Which is surprising given the platform he ran on. Candidate Obama would of never launched missiles at Lybia or stepped up drone attacks on Pakistan.
Also you where quick to brush it off as "conspiracy"...
So the UN wasn't railroaded into not verifying the "evidence" that the Bush administration touted as fact. YELLOWCAKE! oh wait that's a lie... Just because they had some "facts" crammed down their throat and they where strong armed into going along doesn't mean the world agreed with Bush about Iraq and was just spineless. That was the line at the time to get past the fact checking and keep the raw emotional needle pointed toward invasion.
What you wrote also reads like the party line of "we're defending Kuwait's sovereignty just like we would defend any other country, ignore what anyone says about oil, its all conspiracy BS".
You can't call the facts conspiracy and sweep it away and hope that the "honorable" intentions shine brighter than the true reasons.
Even now America did almost nothing to help Japan after what happened there (told the troops already situated at the american base to help out). I mean they're more concerned about radiation reaching us and hurting us... That makes me really mad.
Americans are helping but not America, if you catch my drift.
When Katrina hit Kuwait donated 500million, Qatar donated 100million, and UAE donated 200million. Even Cuba and Venezuela helped and they're "hostile territories" according to the US. This was BEFORE Bush told the national guard to do anything...
Feel very sad after reading this stuff.
160 cruise missiles have been shot, 2 of Gaddafi's sons may or may not have been killed.
You're not getting the point man... Who said we have to take out air defenses? Why? I would rather spend the money to be honest... you don't need missiles to live, you need shelter and food/water. Money can buy those things. Missiles destroy them.
This is why political threads are always bad here on PC.
You disgusting little cretin, you made me feel sick. Well done.
edit: however for other costs of the operation like man power and logistics etc, there are certainly costs. I read the entire thing might have cost/will cost 800 million
I think what's more interesting is how in the last decade or two we've gone from having a country that requires a congress to declare war, to just having a president authorize it, and it's done.
Your right aesir, thanks for the info! You're also right about the Pres. just authorizing it... which is completely illegal by the way (Unless Bush somehow manipulated the congress and thats how he got the authorization to Use Force in Iraq, but who are we kidding, they're almost all alike).
I remember a time when you didn't get massive bullshit at the border of Canada-USA... Ahhh memories. ALL FUCKING GONE, FFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUU!
420,000 people were killed as a result of those blasts. how can you so casually say they deserved it. 20,000 of them were korean slave labour, not to mention the allied POWs and all the Japanese civilians. It was a tragedy. I'm not saying it was or wasn't the only option but it was a very high price to pay.
Aesir: doesn't it cost the US to restock the missiles once they are launched? I doubt the Navy is going to leave itself with nothing to shoot.
Just feels like we're stacking the debt and missile stockpiles too high and things are just going to come crashing down (harder than they have). We don't live in a bubble, we're going to pay for our shortcuts to prosperity, we already are. Money is just that, it doesn't build worthwile infrastructure, provide worthwhile education, or healthy food. This whole nations been so obsessed with obtaining this fictional commodity that they've let everything else go to hell to amass their piles. Sometimes i wish all the american dollars in the world would simply evaporate, too much of it in the wrong hands.
(Not saying "DEATH TO AMERICA!" but our economy could use a "do over")
Ron Paul
please guys, keep going and get some more pages in this thread. I need some funny reading material when I go poop.
Looks like Obama (US) is handing the reins over on Libya to Europe, pretty smart on his part, now maybe the middle east can hate someone else for awhile..
Clinton just bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, killing tens of thousands of innocent sudanese who relied on that plant to supply their medication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory
r fletch r: I believe we're constantly producing them regardless of wars.
If only. All hope for that died in 2008.
Unless we all rise up at once and stop it... cannot be done without a leader though... or can it?
Deserve's got nothing to do with it. 60 million people died during WWII, but likely only thousands could be said to have deserved it, if that. Even the typical German or Japanese soldier was just a tool of his government, innocent of anything that should deserve killing.
That said, the atomic bomb scenario is the one the Japanese government chose. This is the closing statement of the Potsdam Declaration, July 26 1945:
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
And here is the reply from the Japanese Prime Minister, July 27 1945:
We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.
That last quote is what some attribute Truman's decision to use the bombs - the bitter end. Rather than cease the war in July, saving hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, the government of Japan was intent on grinding it out and thus taking as many Allied (mostly American) lives with them as possible by forcing an invasion and hoping for more favorable terms. Rather than allow that, Truman delivered on the utter destruction warned against in the Potsdam Declaration.
Japan was clearly in a no-win scenario by August 1945, but chose to prolong the war anyway. By pursuing that end, they had already decided to throw away their own citizens' lives in an act of defiance by forcing invasion. That's what I have no sympathy for, deliberately extending the war despite inevitable defeat. Japan wanted a bitter end and so they were given one.
Do you feel that the death of a few hundred thousand Americans on top of another half million Japanese in an invasion of Japan is a preferable option? Japan refused surrender - they were still killing Americans in August 1945 and had no intention of stopping until they got their way. Explain to me how a weeks- or months-long invasion of the Japanese mainland by American soldiers, resulting in loss of American lives, is better than ending the war in four days with two bombs.
If you think my acceptance of the atomic bombing is deplorable, here was Plan B. The worst case scenario, done by the US Secretary of War office, was "1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities." Compared to that, compared to the literal deaths of MILLIONS of Japanese, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a mercy.
There are tons of problems with this line of thinking.
First off, and most importantly, it's assuming that any of that stuff "had to happen". Nothing has to happen. It happened because people at the time wanted it to. The whole thing was avoidable though, and if there was a more open minded general opinion at the time, it would have been avoided.
Was the oil ban on Japan really necessary? It could be argued, and it has in several historical books, that this move cemented the Japanese entrance into WW2. But the entire war itself was avoidable.
So yeah, they (US-side) go in there, and mess things up so thoroughly as to pretty much guarantee a world-war. Then when things are FUBAR'd they come up with the line of "we can either drop nukes on them, or it's plan-B". So I suppose an argument could be made that the nukes were preferable to a land invasion. But it must be recognized that BOTH those options are bullshit.
The other problem is that it sets a precedent. Because by any stretch of the imagination, if anyone out there does the same thing to us, they're terrorists. 9/11 was a small fraction of the nukes dropped on Japan, and look what that led to. And yet in both cases you have foreigners bombing innocent civilians. So it sets the precedent that when other people do it, it's "terrorism" and when we do it, it's righteous.
Then another problem is the notion that the US is some innocent by-stander in this whole thing. That's just wrong. And again, the whole "give us an excuse to enter the war" thing stretches back to WW1 as well. And if back then the US had avoided entering the war as well, there wouldn't have even been a WW2.
So you have this ridiculous feedback loop. In the good times the US wreaks havoc all over. With military campaigns, sanctions, assassinations, you name it. Then at some point it all backfires and we get dragged into war, then people claim it was inevitable. And this is still happening today! We still put sanctions on countries. We still invade. We still kill people. And it's never inevitable.
Coming up with some "we shouldn't have been at war in the first place" argument is just trite. Its like saying "oh if only hitler had loved jews there wouldn't have been a war". Its a moot fucking point, it is what it is, its not some other fantasy situation that didn't happen, and at the time, dropping the bomb was the best possible way to end the war.
What would you suggest otherwise? Just packing up and going home? You're lacking any sort of context.
Listen, after 70 years of general peacetime and studies on the effects of nuclear radiation, certainly it was a horrendous act. But to loose any sense of history or context of the situation is just foolish.
If your entire argument is "War is bad and I would prefer it never happens", I think most would agree, but its just not realistic, or an opinion that can be applied in hindsight.
And what do you mean no historical context? I gave you quite a few ones. Again, was the oil ban on Japan necessary? There's no need for that kind of behavior on our part. And it does make things worse down the line. I don't see how one can ignore things like sanctions, and then be surprised when they backfire.
Take WW1 for example. We shouldn't have entered. But okay, we did, did we have to collapse the Habsburgs? Did we have to force two new democracies in Germany and Austria? Both were monarchies before, and there's no way the Habsburgs would have let one like Hitler rise into power. But Woodrow Wilson insisted that Germany and Austria be their own separate Democracies. Not to mention that Poland be its own Democracy as well. Making it essentially a buffer against Russia. Woodrow Wilson not only ensured Hitler's rise, but he handed him Europe on a silver platter.
Talk about historical context.
The bottom line is that all these things stem from our notion that we have the right to meddle in other people's affairs. So then we end up with a face-punch or nut-kick situation later on. I don't see why it's unreasonable for me to ask to avoid those situations to begin with.
Of course it happened because the people at the time wanted it to. The only lens through which it's fair to evaluate the decision is the perspective of the combatants in July 1945 and their goals. After nearly four non-stop years of war, with almost half a million soldiers dead, it's unrealistic to think some "open-minded" US general was going to a) think that Japan could have been non-violently compelled to surrender after their total rejection of the Potsdam Declaration and b) he could convince anyone else of that.
I'm not really interested in debating the specifics of what instigated WWII, but the Japanese chose to invade Indochina as part of an Imperial expansion in 1937 - they weren't forced into war the way the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (arguably) did to Weimar Germany.
The notion that the US is some innocent bystander isn't my notion. I didn't say anything about that.
The argument that without US involvement there wouldn't have been a WWII... Let's say you're correct, that the US stays out of the war. You still have the blitz through Poland, the fall of France, the Battle of Britain in Europe, all before 1942. Without the US, there's no D-Day, no stalling the Axis advance, no liberation of concentration camps. Maybe Germany still slows against the USSR (likely), but there's a very good chance Britain falls without US aid and that Jews are almost entirely wiped out. In Asia, meanwhile, the Japanese continue unabated, conquering China and engaging the USSR (possibly to the point of facilitating a successful German offensive.) There are more Rape of Nanking scenarios, maybe a different Bataan 'Death March' as Japan conquers unopposed. And, the coup de grace of it all, the Einstein-Szilard doesn't prompt the Manhattan Project, giving Nazi Germany the exclusive market on nuclear weapons.
There wouldn't have been a WWII. Instead, there would have been separate European and Asian wars, almost certainly both ending with Axis victories. The post-war superpowers would have been the US and USSR, but Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Everyone who does the attacking feels they're in the "right" or righteous, and the other side feels like they're being terrorized, it's not just the US that feels this way.
I don't want that statement to be confused as an anti-US one. And this thread has strayed far from the original topic...
No, that's not the comparison at all. We're in a fight and I want to end it. The options are A) I punch you in the face while letting you punch me in the face nearly as hard or
The reality is that hundreds of thousands of Japanese were going to die after July 1945 anyway. The Japanese government ensured that by refusing surrender. That's a shitty reality, but it's still reality. There was no consideration in 1945 of just standing around and hoping the fanatic Japanese Empire gave up.
Let's say that you were President Truman, and you opted not to drop the bombs -or- launch an invasion of Japan. How many more American lives would you be willing to let die in battle, holding a stalemate, while waiting for the Japanese to decide they'd had enough? 50,000? 100,000? As the American President, how many of your citizens do you let die in order to save the lives of your enemy? This is not a facetious question, I'm curious what your thought is on how many American deaths are acceptable in a longer Pacific War to avoid both the invasion and nuclear options.
Two things:
1) When I say people at the time, I mean the general US public in the years leading up to the wars. (any wars, WW1, WW2, Iraq, all of them). Not people at the time meaning generals once the war had already started.
2) About WW2, sure, all that stuff you said is true. But I think it's incredibly unfair. I'm talking about a larger context here. Without the US, there's no d-day, there's still an invasion of Poland, all that stuff, assuming that the US had been there to fuck up WW1, and then stayed out of WW2. But I'm talking about a principled approach of not meddling in other people's business.
In which case, the US wouldn't have entered WW1. Which THEN means that there wouldn't have even existed a Germany. Which means no Hitler. Which means no invasion of Poland, which means D-day wouldn't have been needed. It also means no economic sanctions on Japan, which means no Japanese involvement in WW2.
All of which spells out clearly that we don't need a face-punch/nut-kick choice.
It's not fair to consider decades of abuse on our part, then all of a sudden stop it, and say "see? it's messed up! we have to do something". To be fair, it needs to be considered in as wide a viewpoint as possible.
But see, I don't want to be Truman. Let me be Wilson, and applying my approach to things there wouldn't have been a WW2.
Wilson basically ensured all of the events of WW2 by entering the US into WW1. Because of his actions (as the commander in chief), the Habsburg house fell, Austria and Germany became Democracies, they elected Hitler, and the whole thing unfolded as we remember it.
This is the best argument I've seen on the internet for a while. Congrats!
Yeah. Well, unless you can somehow dispute that chain of events.
Man, I just can't agree with simply saying that "not meddling in other people's business" is inherently the correct way to go. Maybe WWI turns out differently, but maybe not - the US was certainly the most conciliatory of the Treaty of Versailles' signatories, so I don't know that US isolationism would have prevented the problems of the Weimar state.
Regardless, let's say we get into the late 1930s without change. Imperial Japan's business is pillaging China, raping women and killing indiscriminately as part of an expansion effort. You can keep selling them oil for their planes and tanks, or you can meddle in their business via sanctions. Nazi Germany's business is conquering your European trading partners and putting Jews in ovens. You can stand back and watch this happen, or you can meddle in their business by joining Britain in the war.
I think the current United States' agenda for involving itself in international events is wrong. Even the most unabashedly patriotic American can recognize that WMDs in Iraq are pursued but not in North Korea because Iraq has oil, and that civil wars in Libya are meddled and not Rwanda because Libya has oil. They're not moral causes near so much as they are economic causes. But that doesn't mean there aren't moral causes out there, and that the US shouldn't use its power and influence to intervene. NATO intervention in the Bosnian War, for instance. No one should get away with 'ethnic cleansing', not if we can help it. And there's no way I can look at the Axis powers in 1942 and think the United States shouldn't have meddled.
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Wilsons-War-Woodrow-Blunder-Hitler/dp/1400082366[/ame]
You're welcome.
BTW, the connection between Wilson's decisions and the collapse of the Habsburgs is pretty much common knowledge now in history-studies. It's not like I just randomly came up with this shit. I heard about it, read about it, and it makes perfect sense to me.
There's this willful choice being made by people in the west that Hitler is like a hurricane or earthquake. Bound to happen, and unpredictable. The notion that our willful actions may have caused him to happen is uncomfortable at the least. But just because we refuse to believe something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
"Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis."
Again, you're picking an arbitrary point in time to begin applying the "minding our business" principle. Weimar republic is too late. The house Habsburg wouldn't have collapsed without us.
Yeah, if we got into the 1930s without change, it would have been bad, real bad. Exactly my point though, it's what led up to those years that caused it, not what happened from those years up.
You're taking Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany as a given. I do not. Keep in mind that before 1918 there wasn't even such a thing as a Germany. It was one empire rules by a royal house. The only reason Germany (as we know it today) existed, is because the western side insisted on it after the first war. That's it. That's the only reason. It's far from a given.
But see, they give you those moral causes. We don't see the years of abuse the US put on the middle-east. The sanctions, random assassinations, regime changes, etc. What we do see is the blowback from that, we see 9/11. That gives us the moral grounds to go to war.
But I believe we should look at both sides of that coin.
You are saying that if it weren't for the US entering WWI germany wouldn't have surrendered? That seems far-fetched.
If you really want to blame someone other than Hitler for Hitler, which in my humble opinion is a silly way to go about things, you should probably look at the Versailles treaty which was what got his panties in a bunch in the first place. Without a national socialist Germany, it would probably have become international socialist come the early forties. That means a Stalinist Europe and a possible future conflict with America down the line.
That's not the argument. The argument is that we should have stayed put and let well enough alone during WW1, not 2. Had we done that, there would have been no WW2.
I'm not willing to take WW2, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, all of that, as simply a given.
For us to mess things up so thoroughly as to pave the road for WW2, and then sit still, would have indeed been as bad as you say.
What I'm saying is that we should have not paved that road.
Without the US entering WW1 there wouldn't have even been a Germany. That's what I'm saying.
It's a historical fact that the west divided Europe into states after WW1. Two of which are Austria and Germany, which before that were one monarchy. And those states were established as Democracies. And what did the German democracy that the west established do first thing? Put Hitler into power.
Good hustle guys *commences round of ass slapping*
Weimar germany is the product of some slabs of paper signed in a dining car somewhere in belgium, not Wilsons decisions.
If it were to be Wilsons fault, we first have to assume that the French and British weren't able to poke the belly of the kaiser beyond the point of comfort in their own rite. America did not have that big of an army at that time. Heck the Amiens offensive were conducted by Canadian and Austrailian troops, i.e. the British Empire..
You're casting an awful wide net to get that conclusion. In 1917, Germans decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare in violation of international law, even after Woodrow Wilson had attempted to mediate a settlement to the war. Expecting that this would draw the US into the fight (the Germans knew they were provoking the US), they attempted to create an alliance with Mexico, promising to fund the Mexicans and return to them the territory of Texas and New Mexico if Mexico attacked the United States. Mexico declined, but Germany's intent was clear
After capturing the Zimmerman Telegram with the Mexico offer *and* enduring the sinking of seven non-military merchant vessels by German subs, only then did the US enter the war. Wilson certainly wasn't any kind of warmonger. He kept the US out of the war as long as was realistic.
Great bit from the wikipedia page on the US entry into WWI: "American entry into World War I came in April 1917, after 2½ years of efforts by President Woodrow Wilson to keep the United States neutral. ... Wilson kept the economy on a peacetime basis, and made no preparations or plans for the war. He insisted on keeping the army and navy on its small peacetime bases. Indeed, Wilson refused even to study the lessons of military or economic mobilization that had been learned so painfully across the sea."
Even in the early years of the war, the US traded with both Britain AND Germany, as their respective blockades allowed. But if a foreign power is sinking your civilian ships and seeking allies to attack you, you are right to go to war. Asking Wilson to sit on his hands, foregoing any trade with Europe because German subs were sinking American vessels, is pacifistic to the point of Chamberlain-esque naivete.
Same here. I understand Vietnam as a proxy war against spreading Communism, but it wasn't a moral war and it sure wasn't conducted well. Nearly everything since then has been about controlling natural resources
Agreed.
Heh - I clicked on the link. Here's the first review on the page, from Publisher's Weekly:
The Holocaust, the gulags, the Cold War and a death toll exceeding 61,911,000 can all be laid at Wilson's doorstep, contends this sophomoric work in isolationist historiography. Powell, a Cato Institute fellow and author of FDR's Folly, argues that Wilson's intervention in WWI enabled the Allies to defeat Germany and impose a punitive peace settlement that made Germans bitter and antidemocratic, facilitated Hitler's rise, etc. Extendingindeed, almost parodyingNiall Ferguson's contrarian arguments from The Pity of War, he insists that a victorious German Empire would have subsided under its own weight, with Hitler and Stalin remaining unknown malcontents. Powell rehashes his arguments at inordinate length to associate Wilson's policies with subsequent Nazi and Soviet atrocities. When not flaying Wilson, Powell rides Cato's hobbyhorse of libertarian doctrine, sprinkling his chronicle of totalitarian horrors with prim sermons on free trade and laissez-faire economics; the Bolsheviks are thus scolded for their opposition to "consumers freely voting with their money, deciding which quantities, qualities, brands, styles, colors, prices, and so on that they preferred." Powell scores some points criticizing the flimsiness of Wilson's pretexts for intervention. But in using the unforeseen consequences of Wilson's actions as a brief for isolationism, he ends up blaming the 20th-century time line on one man. The result is a tendentious and heavy-handed distortion of history