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.
You can at best provide uninformed opinions on the subject...which isn't good enough for the History forum.
The part you chose NOT to bold was the phrase "on my own". Seeing as how I got all A's in History classes (as well as ALL of my other classes), I wouldn't say that makes me "uninformed".
If Germany had not declared war on us, we could have concentrated solely on Japan. There was no other compelling reason to go to war with Germany. Europe has nothing that America "needs".
have you ever played the board game "Risk'? If someone (i.e. Hitler) takes over a large continent, and you are only left with 1 country then you will lose.
It was clear that Hitler was determined to take over the world. We had to get involved.
What gives us the authority to make such rules, even today? We're no one special, we don't have a right to tell other nations what to do, especially where it does not involve us.
It doesn't take any "authority" to understand that invading another nation, raping & slaughtering their civilian population is WRONG. Japan had been doing that in China for TEN YEARS by the time we froze their assets.
I'd ask you what part of "invading another nation, raping & slaughtering their civilian population is WRONG" do you not understand - but CLEARLY you seem to think it's OK to do that - so let me put it THIS way: If it's OK for Japan to do that, than apparently it's OK for US to do whatever the hell we wanted to do to Japan too. In a world where there is NO right or wrong - which is apparently the world you mentally occupy - then we were within our rights to sieze their assets, flatten them in WWII - and in fact we would have been right had we chosen to exterminate them entirely. Japan had a right to take whatever they wanted/could in China, we had right to "steal" their money, they had a right to attack Pearl Harbor, and we had right to flatten them over the next 4 years, occupy their country, and even had right to rape their women and force their men into slave labor (had we chosen to do so).
So my question to you is - in THAT world (which you seem to think we occupy) what is your gripe with us "stealing" their assets?
In THAT world, what gave us the "right" was that we were STRONG enough to do so (which seems to be your argument for why it was OK for Japan to invade China) and the Japanese were too weak to stop us (tough luck Charlie!).
What's good for the goose...
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 12-15-2010 at 07:59 AM..
I am wondering, what does everyone think would have happened had the U.S., in response to being attacked at Pearl Harbor, had gone to war with Japan exclusively?
Everyone in Europe would be speaking German, or Russian perhaps.
It doesn't take any "authority" to understand that invading another nation, raping & slaughtering their civilian population is WRONG. Japan had been doing that in China for TEN YEARS by the time we froze their assets.
I'd ask you what part of "invading another nation, raping & slaughtering their civilian population is WRONG" do you not understand - but CLEARLY you seem to think it's OK to do that - so let me put it THIS way: If it's OK for Japan to do that, than apparently it's OK for US to do whatever the hell we wanted to do to Japan too. In a world where there is NO right or wrong - which is apparently the world you mentally occupy - then we were within our rights to sieze their assets, flatten them in WWII - and in fact we would have been right had we chosen to exterminate them entirely. Japan had a right to take whatever they wanted/could in China, we had right to "steal" their money, they had a right to attack Pearl Harbor, and we had right to flatten them over the next 4 years, occupy their country, and even had right to rape their women and force their men into slave labor (had we chosen to do so).
So my question to you is - in THAT world (which you seem to think we occupy) what is your gripe with us "stealing" their assets?
In THAT world, what gave us the "right" was that we were STRONG enough to do so (which seems to be your argument for why it was OK for Japan to invade China) and the Japanese were too weak to stop us (tough luck Charlie!).
What's good for the goose...
Ken
However...not our problem. If I see you being mugged, I have no obligation to help you, or even take the time to report the incident.
I don't think hitler wanted to take over the world. I think a good deal of hitlers moves were related to the continuation of the brittish trying to assert their hegemonic dominance through the balancing of powers in Europe. The war in Europe would have by and large been in the East, had France and England not done anything.
It might be wrong--but I don't care. It had nothing to do with us, and was none of our business. We could have stayed out of it.
Like I said, if I saw you getting mugged, I don't have to do anything about it. Is it wrong for someone to mug you? Sure it is. But it isn't any of my business what happens to YOU.
OK, an isolationist point of view - I can accept that. I don't agree with it in this particular instance and I think that in the case of WWII our involvement was exactly the RIGHT thing morally and the right thing in the long-term interests of the US - BUT having said that I DO think that we get involved in such wars FAR TOO OFTEN. I think that nearly every war we've been in since WWII was a mistake & that we should not have become involved - not quite every war, but certainly most of them. Such is apparently (and sadly) the price of being the "top dog".
Any theory that the Japanese were simply defending themselves at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, is nonsense - the attack was part of a broader strategy by the Japanese military to secure a new resource of oil in order to complete their conquest of China.
Quite so, but you disregard one important element that you raised yourself. Japan's conquest of China was none of our business, but we made it our business by trying to obstruct it, at our own peril. That placed America right in the center of Japan's objectives, with a predictable result. That is something we did all by ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
While it can be debated that the Japanese had as much "right" to take what they wanted in the Pacific as anyone else, the fact remains that the "borders" were quite well established since before 1900. Whether the United States was right or wrong to seize the Phillipines from Spain or turn a blind eye to the overthrow of the Hawaiians is immaterial as those territories were now part of the United States. Same goes for French Indochina, Dutch East Indies and the various British possessions. Japan had no "right" to take these territories outside of war.
Subsequent history has shown, though, that those borders, all created by force, were ephemeral, and one force or another would one day erase them. Japan felt that it was their turn, and had a right to a Monroe Doctrine for their own part of the world. If you will read the history of the US occupation of the Phililppines, you will see that in comparison, Japan had little to be ashamed of.
Subsequent history has shown, though, that those borders, all created by force, were ephemeral, and one force or another would one day erase them. Japan felt that it was their turn, and had a right to a Monroe Doctrine for their own part of the world. If you will read the history of the US occupation of the Phililppines, you will see that in comparison, Japan had little to be ashamed of.
Anyone can attempt to exert their interests and control over anything anytime they wish. They will, however, most likely be opposed by other people wanting to do the same. Right or wrong is all based on perspective. Japan did what it thought it had to to assert control and gain resources. The U.S. did what it thought it had to to keep its influence and control over the area. Both are right and both are wrong.
My only point was that you seemed to support the idea that Japan's actions were justifiable and the U.S.'s weren't. It's all a matter of perspective and if we are going to agree that Japan had the "right" to attempt to seize what it wanted, then the U.S. also had the "right" to defend what it had already seized.
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.
