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 the end we would have HAD to be a part of the fight against the Nazi's and Japan. Had we not acted, it is entirely possible, and likely that England would have fallen. With no western front, Hitler would have been in a much better position to march further into the Soviet Union, which was between a land hungry Germany and a land hungry Japan.
Where would that have left us in a world with us and a couple of dictatorships who could contol the seas by then? If we had no land base we would have had to let Hitler have Europe and Great Britan. The Japanese might have taken Hawaii and if we were alone could we really have kept them out of the west or east coast with bombers at least?
We would have HAD to deal with people who thought nothing of starving and working those classified as "undesirables" (including US POW's) to death and those who used prisoners as lab rats to test fatal diseases. We would have had to live with these people as a share of the world with those who were looking at us as next. By then we wouldn't have footholds or allies either and the bearing straight is certainly crossable to the north.
I don't think this is the sort of world anyone of us who grew up post war want to have lived in. It would be a hunker down and wait for the other shoe to drop world. The world we grew up in that was there for our kids would be very vastly different, and I'll bet a lot less free because paranoia breeds fear and fear breeds reasons to control.
So it was a war of freedom we could not have avoided except at a horrible cost.
Hitler declared war on america because of the naval war that had been going on between the two countries for a year undeclared. The whole origional issue revolved around the states protecting goods being shipped to brittian ie the lend-lease act and whether or not the germans where with in reason to protect themselves.
In my opinion the proverbial straw that broke the camels back with the pacific was the oil embargo against japan. Had thisnot happend it is highly unlikey the japanese would have attacked pearl.
Indeed. If anything, the most threatened American freedoms were those of Nikkei, and the threat came from their own government and fellow citizenry. We ought to be really glad they didn't start a terrorist group after the way to get revenge. Happily for us, they were better citizens than their country had ever deserved.
Agree with your post,442nd Infantry had more Medal of Honor recipients than any other unit of its size in WW2.Just one modification, Issei-Japanese born,Nisei-Second Generation,Nikkei-Japnese Stock Index.
Agree with your post,442nd Infantry had more Medal of Honor recipients than any other unit of its size in WW2.Just one modification, Issei-Japanese born,Nisei-Second Generation,Nikkei-Japnese Stock Index.
Hmmm. So Daniel Inouye, a 442 veteran, doesn't know what he is? I'm sure he'll be disappointed to know that he's a stock index. Maybe you should write to the Senator and point out his error, since he's obviously embarrassing himself.
Actually, Germany and Italy were the first to declare war. They did it on the United States, on December 11, 1941. Later that day the US responded with a similar declaration.
Germany did not do it willingly, but the terms of the Tripartite [aka Axis] Pact of September 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan made it necessary.
Actually this is not correct. Article III of the Tripartite Pact stated the following: "....They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic, and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked (my emphasis) by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict."
Since Japan was the attacker and not the attacked, there was no obligation on the part of Germany or Italy to join Japan in her war against the United States.
Actually I think grabbing land and wealth from others is as valid a reason for war as any and I live with the benefits of those wars every day.
So we'd be OK with another super power in the future attacking the US to grab land and wealth? If we are OK with doing it to other nations, then we had better not balk when the tables are turned.
So we'd be OK with another super power in the future attacking the US to grab land and wealth? If we are OK with doing it to other nations, then we had better not balk when the tables are turned.
No we wouldn't be OK with it; it would obviously be counter to our interests. I'm for what's in my interests and I'm not looking for a "unified field theory" so to speak of international relations.
...1812: Well, the Brit's did come and burn the White House...quote]
You have overlooked - as most Yanks do - that the U.S. attached Canada first, and burned down government buildings in their capital, York. The torching of Washington was a calculated act of retaliation.
And as been pointed out by someone else, the War of 1812 is seen as an attempt to annex Canada by not a few historian, which the U.S. had been itching to do, as much as the usual textbook bushwa about impressment of seamen.
Scratch that one off the list.
It' s hard to imagine we could grab Canada now, let alone then. I'm also pretty sure we would avoid that now as our Healthcare system is already out of whack.
I believe the Canadians have done a wonderful job of retailiation by showing up in Ft. Lauderdale on a regular basis, during the Winter break, and complain of "chest pains"....read: who wants to wait 2 years to have open heart in Canada when the same can be had, usually better, in a week if one simply grabs an Air Canada jog down when their schedule permits?
All cheeky comments aside. I believe we attacked York out of fear from other armies leveraging Canada's then considerable might against us, the fledgling step-child of Britain? Just a thought...
The good news is now we are fairly good neighbors? We sold you our Spruence class destroyers (our front line until 1990) recently and even have looked at other strategic military assets to cover our collective rear ends?
The question doesn't concern a war's goodness or badness, though it's inevitable some will misplace the original premise. The question concerns which wars were for freedom and which were for not. I think it's an excellent one, because it's standard cant to blurt "They fought for our freedom," as if that's the only reason Americans ever go to war, and as if all Americans fighting are always automatically 'fighting for freedom.' It's one of our pet national delusions, and perhaps has always been. No one really wants to hear that lives were thrown away, wasted in stupid or rotten causes, etc. So they invent a noble cause. Pity that they can't just accept that doing one's oathbound duty honorably and with courage is itself a cause, one every serving military member signed on for. The motivation of the individual soldier and that of the nation can easily be at variance.
The irony of it is that in some cases, it was the other side fighting for their freedom (from whatever; from us, from a land grab, from economic exploitation, etc.) and us opposing it. But that's impalatable to many Americans, because many automatically associate 'American=Freedom,' thus anything non-American or not allied with us must be anti-freedom. Basically it's the general lack of critical thinking and tendency to parrot dumb slogans that comes from declining educational standards. I relish seeing dumb slogans taken to task and dismantled where they just don't apply.
You make some very credible points but, taking the "fight for freedom" knee-jerk reaction is not giving the corny them it's due. IF you mean in the absolute literal sense then yes, you have very good arguments. However, like all things human, it's just not that simple, is it?
Let's pick on WWI. Now there's a war the US CLEARLY wanted NO part of at first until at such time a slightly improved version of the Titanic got a torpedo in it's side....aka Lusitania. Sure, we were warned to stay out of INTERNATIONAL waters so if one were liberal enough, you could say it was our fault for exercising our maritime freedoms abroad, harming no one, and receiving a torpedo in the side for the effort.
I'm smart enough to realize there were plenty that would want the US in as fast as possible for THEIR collective international assets and gains but, it's not like the Americans were itching to go over until that unfortunate incident.
As the war ended, Wilson's ehterial thoughts on a league of nations (US idea by the way) with the HOPES OF ETERNAL PEACE amongst nations was dashed when European, Middle-Eastern, and Indian interests were not exactly satisfied. Can't put all the narrow minded thinking on the US. There were quite a few nations that wanted their pound of flesh from Germany, thus igniting their anger to the point where 55 million people had to perish to resolve THAT upset some 25 years later.
Think about that.
What you fail to realize that sometimes the freedoms any nation enjoys are not always so readily apparent. Sometimes they take a generation or two to actualize and reach their value.
The opposite of course is what led to WWII. Germany was relatiely pissed off, broke and hungry, the perfect environment to spawn another mad man, Japan needed more assets, mainly OIL (See, by the way for those on the left, George Bush had nothing to do with that...either) and were willing to attack the only perceived threat to THEIR domination in the region, the US to gain that ECONOMIC advantage.
Let's not forget, if the Americans were somewhat isolationist in WWI, they were downright adverse to ANY conflict when WWII broke out. We wanted England to fight THEIR war...we were tired of war....we wanted no part of it. So, if you listen to some on this forum, I guess we should have turned the other cheek when Pearl Harbor was attacked? When the liberty ships were being torpedoed (I understand Germany's rationale on this one)?
Where does one draw the line? When IS it okay to fight for ones own country? Bottom line, WWII, and our involvement did protect freedoms. Christ, Hitler was developing 4 engine bombers until the V-2 rocket. He had FULL intentions of attacking the US, just like Japan.
There is no plausible argument against our involvement in WWII and our preservation of freedoms because of it. It's laughable to argue otherwise.
We can go back and forth on Korea, Viet Nam, and the Gulf I and Gulf II mid-east exercises but, even those will have some reasons to argue for the preservation of freedoms on both sides.
As much as some would like to tear down the efforts in the middle-east there ARE people who can prove to you that some of those folks are definitely better off WITH us than without? Don't listen to CNN, Fox, or MSN, go ask a Vet who has come back. I think he OR she might give you a fresh perspective and whether or not it's "all about oil"?
Again, the "Freedom isn't Free" ad for more recruits is a bit tired I agree but, the end game does in fact, preserve freedoms for you and I to enjoy. The right to disagree, the right to move about freely, the right to pursue happiness, the right to this forum.........
So in THAT vane, most of the wars did in fact preserve and/or advance freedoms although not always that apparent at the time and in some cases, in retrospect?
I don't think economic 'freedom' is the right word. Perhaps 'dominance'. By that logic seizing control of other countries' national resources so that they are accessible for one's own rampant consumption means that one would sanction the invasion of Scotland, Norway, Denmark, and Canada if they didn't sell you their oil in the quantities you wanted.
You know, I have yet to see the US occupy any country it helped during any major conflict. Christ, we should be so lucky. And so should you!
I can't quite recall our dominance over France, Germany, Lituania (don't they still owe us cash???), ad nauseum. It seems to me we have done a great job of spilling our blood and cash so OTHER countries can live?
How about those Norwegians??? They are usually pretty down on us. If I recall, the Germans were having their way with them back in WWII and if I recall, once they were removed, we didn't extract so much as a drop of their North Sea assets?
So, if I follow your logic, we have the corner on French Wine, German Beer, Polish coats, and Japanese products all at our disposal?
You, like the rest of the world, should be grateful for our enormous amount of RESTRAINT. It's not like they aren't getting paid for the oil. And when we finally do leave, we will have left 5-6000 dead from our country, billions in debt that every other country complains about and later wants to business with, for the effort. You are welcome.
Oil is somewhat stabilized (at the moment) and you can appreciate that along with those plastic keys you will be tapping in response to this rant (oil=plastics???).
I can't imagine a world that had our nuclear arsenal and the rest of the world enjoy the same level of restraint? For God's sake man, if we were like the romans, fully 1/2 of the world would be glowing right now. AGAIN, you are welcome.
And while we are on America's insatiable use of oil, don't forget China and India's demands are exponentially rising with absolutely NO regard to the economic impact (ever see a satellite photo of China?) and therefore, little or no regard for their global neighbors whatsoever. We ARE working on it and I think most Americans are getting on board with reducing some demands. It would be nice if our Government would follow our lead on this.
South America is booming, using plenty of alternate fuels as well as gasoline and diesel. Now the good news, one of the largest oil deposits was recently found off the coast of Brazil albeit many miles down....smart money says, they will find some investors, foreign and domestic to foot that bill and leverage off middle east oil. Now, you tell me slick, do you think Brazil is going to follow your utopian ideals and "do the right thing" by avoiding the explotation of THAT oil field? Hardly.
Let America go back to an isolationist state. Just pay us the courtesy of not blaming us when your banks go under, your need international aid during a disaster, or some other human related malady (Darfur). Besides, I see so little of all the other countries getting off the bench and helping when these things happen (Haiti, Tsunami's, Earthquakes). It's time our evil empire leaves those to themselves when that happens. God forbid, we don't want others thinking we are expanding our world dominance over those regions too....right?
Look, we tried that peace intiative after WWI. The League of Nations. One problem, all those peace loving nations you seem to THINK are out there started bickering day one. It took 6 months to put that weakened document together because of all the bickering internationally. The world's not as nice a place as you indicate.
Dominance? We have little to no interest in dominating anyone. I think if there is any country out there that you do not have to worry about dominating foreign countries it's the US. Not sure you can say that about China (Taiwan? That's always a hot topic now isn't it?).
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.
Not so fast my Canadian Friend....
