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.
In 1938 the US military was about the same size as the Romanian military. He needed time to build up the Armed Services.
Yep. This is where most people have no clue.
Also, we spent the first part of the war rapidly producing guns, trucks, blankets for the RUSSIANS because they had people but no equipment.
(I've read the memoir notes of a Russian sniper (female) and things like shoes were a luxury.)
Germany was a democracy which became autocratic. France was rather obviously a democracy, The Netherlands had been a Constitutional monarchy since 1815, Denmark had been a Constitutional monarchy, the between wars reconstituted Poland was a democractic republic, Czechoslovakia was a republic, between wars Austria had been a republic....and of course the threatened Great Britain was a Constitutional monarcy.
So, you apparently are misinformed, badly so it would seem.
Not misinformed at all, Quite aware of all that you say, which does nothing to repudiate your suggestion that the US was historically inclined to act out of altruistic concern for the plight of the poor Europeans. Throughout the 19th century and into the 20th century, conditions were so bad for Europeans that they fled by the millions to the Americas, even from Sweden and the Netherlands. Yet America did not lift a finger to mitigate their plight under regimes that were, at best, marginally democratic.
The march of fascism was not started by Hitler and Mussolini, but by Franco and Salazar, whom America embraced with the same ardent fervor with which we embraced Sukarno, Mobutu, Marcos, Pinochet, the Shah, right up to Chalabi and Karzai. How could Hitler have been deterred by suspicions that America would not embrace him as well?
The only irritant we found in Hitler was his expansionism. If he had stayed within Germany's borders and merely exterminated the Jews within, we would have had no quarrel with him. In fact, we wouldn't even have cared if all he had invaded were the eastern countries that might have otherwise been threatened by the USSR. It was only when he turned westward did we get a little squeamish. We would eventually need Thatcher and Blair to do our dirty work for us, and we needed to defend the goose that would lay those golden eggs.
In post #1 you were clearly attributing deaths to the US taking so long....with the clear implication that we COULD have but chose not to stop the Nazi's sooner.
In post #26 you weakly state that you aren't blaming anyone but guess what? You already had.
So yes, you are clearly blaming the US. If you want to clarify or retract some of your original comments then do so....but throwing in a "I'm not blaming" is dishonest.
Do you know what a "question" is? Want me to look that word up for you?
I couldn't care less who is/was to blame. So stop being anal about an issue that dosen't exist.
I don't think the French army was #1. It didn't take the Nazis too long to get through France.
Also, we spent the first part of the war rapidly producing guns, trucks, blankets for the RUSSIANS because they had people but no equipment.
(I've read the memoir notes of a Russian sniper (female) and things like shoes were a luxury.)
No question the US sent a vast amount of war material to the USSR. However, the Red Army was not short of equipment or arms, and had some of the best weapons of the war already in action prior to the US declaration of war.
For example, the T-34 tank, perhaps the best overall tank of WWII, the IL-2 Sturmovik ground attack bomber, the P-SSH submachine gun, etc.
Certainly, our shipments to the USSR were valuable, and most useful to their war effort, but they were not without the capability to wage war on their own, without outside assistance.
The Red Army's biggest problem in 1941 was the tremendous lack of capable mid-level, and senior level officers, thanks to Stalin's 1930's purges, when many fine officers, such as Marshal Tukachevsky were executed on trumped-up charges.
Not misinformed at all, Quite aware of all that you say, which does nothing to repudiate your suggestion that the US was historically inclined to act out of altruistic concern for the plight of the poor Europeans. .
Please find the quote from me which caused you to conclude that I was advancing the idea that the US had ever been so inclined. Since the point that I had to make hinges on the entire concept of the US declining to get involved until compelled to do so, I cannot imagine how you would extract the above.
And if you had always been aware that those European nations I listed were indeed democracies before the Nazi takeover, you leave us wondering why in your earlier post you wrote:
Quote:
In fact, the monarchies that prevailed in Europe in the pre-Hitler era do not readily lend their demise to what you call 'the extermination of participatory democracy'.
Perhaps you "always knew" starting right after I corrected you on the above.
Do you know what a "question" is? Want me to look that word up for you?
I couldn't care less who is/was to blame. So stop being anal about an issue that dosen't exist.
I don't think the French army was #1. It didn't take the Nazis too long to get through France.
Regarding your last sentence, I am referring to when Hitler first started creating his cruelty ( late 1930's)
There was a reason Hitler ordered his troops on horseback to --test the waters-- in regards to France.
By the time he invaded France, Hitler's confidence was high cuz he had witnessed France doing nothing about his troops on horseback and nothing as he started invading and taking over countries one by one.
Regarding the conquer of France by Hitler--------France ( wrongly) assumed Germany tanks could not attack them cuz they had forests to protect them.
Do you know what a "question" is? Want me to look that word up for you?
I couldn't care less who is/was to blame. So stop being anal about an issue that dosen't exist.
I don't think the French army was #1. It didn't take the Nazis too long to get through France.
You ended your #1 with "So many lives could have been saved."
That's a statement, not a question. So yeah, go look up "question" as it would save us a lot of time. Look up Mustela Nivalis while you are there too.
Look on the bright side. This is the worse economic recession since the thirties. Major economic problems commonly lead to human rights horrors. If things get much worse we can get it right this time.
The U.S entered World War 2 in 1941. I read somewhere that the N.Y. Times already reported in 1942 that 1 Million Jews were already killed. D-day did't happen until 1943. I know they had to ship a lot of people over there, but I would think they could have done that is much less time. And I find it hard to believe the U.S didn't know anything of the mass murder before 1941.
My question is - Why did the U.S. wait so long?
So many lives could have been saved.
There's an easy answer to this. We didn't have the military strength to do anything sooner. At the outbreak of World War II, we had a tiny, poorly trained and equipped army, a one-ocean navy, and virtually no air force. Militarily, we were completely impotent, and it took years to build up the strength to take on the Nazis.
The U.S entrance into WWII had nothing to do with the Holocaust or liberation of the Jews from the camps.
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.
