Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There WAS NO discussion about isolationists when you contradicted yourself.
You replied to one person that it was understandable why Germany declared war on the USA...because we declared war on their ally.
Then you replied to me that going to war with Germany was wrong because they weren't invading our soil.
The contradiction is that you can't have it BOTH ways for two different countries. If a rule applies to THEM, it must equally apply to us.
The USA wasn't invading Germany, so your logic would be that they shouldn't have declared war on us.
Plus, using your first set of logic, Germany declared war on OUR allies, so we had the same right to declare war on them.
Yes. You can. Because they have two different viewpoints.
Your response to something is not going to be the same as mine, because we are different people, and we're going to answer differently. Reality is subjective, after all.
And we didn't have allies--except for the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type. We still don't, to this day.
The difficulty I think people have is separating intention from possibility and capability.
Germany may well have not had a policy, or intent to attack the USA. But the fact is that a Germany that controlled Europe and Russia would be a Germany that had greater resources, population, military might and technological know how than America. This would also be a threat, intentions aside.
When Japan attacked us and we were brought into the war it greatly changed things for Germany. If they had succeeded taking the European continent and Russia, they would have had the ability to attack. They would have had the time to complete their development of the V2 program as well. The Japanese would have worked cooperatively until the time came that power and control was involved. In the end neither trusted the other and it was just a marriage of convience which would have lasted only as long as both sides saw an advantage.
Early on, we cal look at the plans laid out to look for intent and capability. But as Hitler got progressively dependent on the drug his "doctor" was supplying him and after the bunker was bombed and he became suspiciouls of his military, it becomes more conjectiure. But at some point there was at least intent.
There is an excellent Ken Burn's documentary called "The War" which you can buy from pbs or if you have netflix, life stream. Its about the experiences of young men from four small typical American towns. Its not a comprehensive history, though it comes close. I believe its the last segment, one of the men from the small town in Minnesota was a part of a small squad who captured a group of Germans. One of them spoke in a perfect American accent. He started asking the Americans where they were from and when he found out the one was from Minnesota, he ask more...
He was familiar with the location of the town, the landmarks only a local would know, the rivers and streams and small details that practically nobody but a local would know. He was asked if he had been there and said no. Then he told them that he'd been training for the Occupation force that would be moved in after they had conqured America. Maybe it wasn't practical or likely to succeed, at least when all the cards were played, but someone put a lot of effort into finding out tiny details of places and training for the future at some point, which would speak of it being an intent. Spooky moment to hear the American soldier telling about it.
When Japan attacked us and we were brought into the war it greatly changed things for Germany. If they had succeeded taking the European continent and Russia, they would have had the ability to attack. They would have had the time to complete their development of the V2 program as well. The Japanese would have worked cooperatively until the time came that power and control was involved. In the end neither trusted the other and it was just a marriage of convience which would have lasted only as long as both sides saw an advantage.
Early on, we cal look at the plans laid out to look for intent and capability. But as Hitler got progressively dependent on the drug his "doctor" was supplying him and after the bunker was bombed and he became suspiciouls of his military, it becomes more conjectiure. But at some point there was at least intent.
There is an excellent Ken Burn's documentary called "The War" which you can buy from pbs or if you have netflix, life stream. Its about the experiences of young men from four small typical American towns. Its not a comprehensive history, though it comes close. I believe its the last segment, one of the men from the small town in Minnesota was a part of a small squad who captured a group of Germans. One of them spoke in a perfect American accent. He started asking the Americans where they were from and when he found out the one was from Minnesota, he ask more...
He was familiar with the location of the town, the landmarks only a local would know, the rivers and streams and small details that practically nobody but a local would know. He was asked if he had been there and said no. Then he told them that he'd been training for the Occupation force that would be moved in after they had conqured America. Maybe it wasn't practical or likely to succeed, at least when all the cards were played, but someone put a lot of effort into finding out tiny details of places and training for the future at some point, which would speak of it being an intent. Spooky moment to hear the American soldier telling about it.
I'm not sure if were disagreeing on anything
My point is that intent is somewhat separate to capability. America's interest was clearly served by ensuring that no one had the capability to invade, whatever their intent
I just deleted 221 posts. The next personal attack, name calling, snarky remark or attempt to hijack the thread will be rewarded with an Infraction. The bickering is officially ended.
We can all agree that we cannot all agree and go forward with the original topic of debate.
...1 - If you want discuss the American Revolution, Grenada, Nam, or the merits of another war, START A NEW THREAD.
...2- If you want to debate legal issues and courtroom tactics, lobby for a LEGAL FORUM.
...3- FDR vs Churchill vs Mao vs Hitler vs Stalin? START A NEW THREAD.
........If you want to discuss China and Manchria START A NEW THREAD.
...4- If you want to discuss the policies of the US vs ? POLITICS FORUM is the place for the face of politics.
...5- If you still DO NOT want to discuss the topic, MOVE ON.
My point is that intent is somewhat separate to capability. America's interest was clearly served by ensuring that no one had the capability to invade, whatever their intent
But Intent again raises its ugly head when you ask yourself how we decide whose capability to interfere with, and whose not. Would it be prudent for every nation to equip itself with nuclear defense, and in fact deploy them, against the "capability" of another nation (say, USA, for example) to invade them? Do you justify the Irans and the North Koreas when they do exactly that? (Aside from America's simmering intent, already implied.)
My point is that intent is somewhat separate to capability. America's interest was clearly served by ensuring that no one had the capability to invade, whatever their intent
I wasn't disagreeing, just adding additional thoughts. Pearl Harbor was the wildcard which changed all expectations.
I don't think Germany expected us to join the fight fully so soon. If Britan looked to be weakening we would be expected to up the aide, but to generally and fully join the war was only something that would take a major development, which Japan provided. It is doubtful that the German government expected Pearl Harbor anymore than we did, for it was not to either their or Japan's advantage to do so. But it *was* the big event which changed the picture internally and was fated to lead to a completely changed situation for all.
And yes, once attacked, America was fully behind giving her all to make sure that no party was able to launch an attack on the homeland. Before that we still had this illusion that we *could* sit in the middle of a world be torn apart by atrocities and war and wait it out. Pearl Harbor also destroyed that illusion.
Before that we still had this illusion that we *could* sit in the middle of a world be torn apart by atrocities and war and wait it out. Pearl Harbor also destroyed that illusion.
Not really. The only thing Pearl Harbor taught us in that respect was that if we insist on occupying islands in the middle of the ocean, they might be within reach of someone across that ocean.
But Intent again raises its ugly head when you ask yourself how we decide whose capability to interfere with, and whose not. Would it be prudent for every nation to equip itself with nuclear defense, and in fact deploy them, against the "capability" of another nation (say, USA, for example) to invade them? Do you justify the Irans and the North Koreas when they do exactly that? (Aside from America's simmering intent, already implied.)
Clearly intent has a role, if a state had an active plan to invade and launched a military build up clearly it would be more threatening than a state with peaceful intent. But I think that capability changes can be said to have a structural effect separate from that of intent. So, one might argue that rising German power in the latter half of the 19 century made Germany a threat, in spite of its lack of aggressive intent.
In regards your specific question in justifying Iranian or North Korean Nuclear weapons. I know more about Iran, so I will keep my comments focused there. The answer must be that Iran has perfectly reasonable concerns over American power in the Middle East and, again, perfectly reasonably sees nuclear weapons as a way to limit that power. If Iran getting nuclear weapons is a good/bad thing, is another question.
Clearly intent has a role, if a state had an active plan to invade and launched a military build up clearly it would be more threatening than a state with peaceful intent. But I think that capability changes can be said to have a structural effect separate from that of intent. So, one might argue that rising German power in the latter half of the 19 century made Germany a threat, in spite of its lack of aggressive intent.
.
There is little evidence that Hitler would have ever intended to be a "threat" to the USA, other than an economic one by amalgamating a competitive structure on that side of the globe. If he ever did say he wanted to expand his influence to America, it could very well be in response to something real or imagined that the Amerians might have expressed earlier. The fact of Germany attacking US ships at sea could be seen as the equivalent of America's punitive action against Liberian ships docking in Cuba, which was hardly a declaration of war against Liberia.
But it is not always so easy to dig all the way to the bottom of who expressed "intent" first. A glowing example is the Balfour Declaration that led to the current Mid East powderkeg, and even that can be traced back further to the Hertzl resolution. At what point does an expression or implication of intent, after passing through one multiplier after another, become a fulcrum for justified belligerence?
You are essentially correct in all that you have said, but intent can be a very elusive thing to identify accurately, even in real time.
Last edited by jtur88; 02-05-2011 at 06:45 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
