U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2010, 10:54 AM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,491 posts, read 5,816,695 times
Reputation: 3761

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
That would have required Adolf's cooperation. Hitler declared war on the United States first, not the other way around. I realize what question you meant to ask, but as the wording stands, that's the answer.
I think its also important to remember that Hitler only did so because the terms of the Tripartite Pact (aka Axis Treaty) between Germany, Italy and Japan required it. For many obvious reasons, Hitler did not want the U.S. to enter the war.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 12-08-2010, 11:56 AM
 
31,371 posts, read 33,527,788 times
Reputation: 14925
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Europe has nothing that America "needs".
Other than being one of your strongest economic partners?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-08-2010, 12:27 PM
 
31,371 posts, read 33,527,788 times
Reputation: 14925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haargar View Post
A little known fact is that many in the U.S didn't want to war Germany
You do understand that "many" is a weasel world and by using the word many, also implies that many wanted to intervene, which is just as equally true. As for there being no conceivable reason to enter the war, I suspect that your imagination is rather limited.

Quote:
Germany wanted to dominate Central Europe but I doubt Europe in general.
Considering that in Zweites Buch, Hitler's expansion on Mein Kampf, Hilter spells out a starkly different scenario of not only world conquest but an an inevitable face off against the U.S. In short your argument is rather groundless.

Quote:
Germany didn't want to invade Western Europe but Britain and France declared war.
And did nothing thereafter until the German invasion of Belgium.

Quote:
Britain & France still had massive colonies the world over, their behavior in the 2nd World War is a bit suspicious and hypocritical.
Well it certainly is no secret that Britain and France held colonies across the globe and for the most part had no intention of relinquishing them even after the war while Germany had lost all of hers to the Great Powers, so if the Britain and France already had a lock on potential colonies besides those of Spain, Portugal, the Dutch and Belgians, what would have been their motivation?

Quote:
War between Russia and Germany was inevitable. Germany probably would of won if it wasn't for having to deal with Britain and France's hypocritical declarations of war. The Soviets had the population but Germany had far superior technology (the best in the world) and their soldiers would amongst the best educated and trained in the world. Furthermore, they were more ideologically connected.
That would have been nice for the 6th Army to know before they had to face the T-34.

Quote:
Something about American's going to fight the "Jewish war"?
Perhaps something you read on Stormfront, because I doubt that outside of the local Bund meeting, such a slogan was widely used or recognized.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-08-2010, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 42,850,735 times
Reputation: 10988
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Other than being one of your strongest economic partners?
But do we "need" anything from them?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-08-2010, 02:54 PM
 
31,371 posts, read 33,527,788 times
Reputation: 14925
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
But do we "need" anything from them?
I guess not if the intention was to remain a third ranked agrarian economy, and even in that case, the U.S. found that impossible to do even in the beginning of the 19th Century. So, I suppose the U.S. could have been like China, a closed hermit society, ripe for picking by any industrial power that chose to do so.

I'm sorry but I am constantly amazed at folks who think that the U.S. can or has ever been a wholly self-sufficient society.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-08-2010, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 77,759,149 times
Reputation: 36299
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
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".
The fact that Germany declared war on us did not compel us to declare war on them, nor even take a belligerent posture against them. Only to take prudent measures to defend our shores against them, and the Atlantic Ocean gave us a buffer that we could rely on for quite a bit of early defense.

So we could have concentrated on the Pacific war, and perhaps attained a resolution in the Pacific so quickly, that the German problem could be addressed later. I'm not saying it would have turned out that way, but that it is not a given that Germany's declaration forced us to engage the Germans in Europe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Still doesn't...however, Japan did attack U.S. interests. They used a MILITARY attack with the full support of that military's government.

That was the only compelling reason to go to war with Japan--they did attack our territory--if not one of our states.
Even the fact that they attacked us, is not by itself a compelling reason to go to war. We could have, instead, concentrated effort on defending our military and civilian presence in Hawaii, thanked them for pointing out how slack our defenses were, and dared the Japanese to try it again.

You are acting like the rest of the world gets to compel the US to go to war by the mere fact of a declatation or a drive-by shooting.. They don't. We get to decide whether to go to war or not, and if a reasonably efficient defensive posture successfully avoids significant homeland attacks that genuinely imperil our sovereignty and way of life, why go to war?

Last edited by jtur88; 12-08-2010 at 03:09 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-08-2010, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 18,722,705 times
Reputation: 32426
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The fact that Germany declared war on us did not compel us to declare war on them, nor even take a belligerent posture against them. Only to take prudent measures to defend our shores against them, and the Atlantic Ocean gave us a buffer that we could rely on for quite a bit of early defense.
So we could have concentrated on the Pacific war, and perhaps attained a resolution in the Pacific so quickly, that the German problem could be addressed later. I'm not saying it would have turned out that way, but that it is not a given that Germany's declaration forced us to engage the Germans in Europe.
Even the fact that they attacked us, is not by itself a compelling reason to go to war. We could have, instead, concentrated effort on defending our military and civilian presence in Hawaii, thanked them for pointing out how slack our defenses were, and dared the Japanese to try it again.
You are acting like the rest of the world gets to compel the US to go to war by the mere fact of a declatation or a drive-by shooting.. They don't. We get to decide whether to go to war or not, and if a reasonably efficient defensive posture successfully avoids significant attacks on our homeland, why go to war?
Everything Jtur88 writes above is true; we were not "forced" to go to war against either Germany or Japan. However, there are excellent cases to be made for having done so anyway. First, the American people were totally outraged by the Pear Harbor attack, and in a democracy such overwheming sentiment is impossible to ignore. As 88 probably knows very well, only one single congressman voted against the declaration of war against Japan presented by President Roosevelt. With hindsight, I'm glad we did go to war against Japan. Just consider: Had we shored up our defenses and let the Japanese have a free hand in Asia and the Pacific, they probably would have overrun Australia in addition to everything else and thereby made themselves even more powerful with all the resources from the East Indies and other places. This would have placed them in a better and stronger position to attack us again a couple of years later. By taking the fight to them, first (basically) on Guadalcanal and the naval Battle of the Coral Sea, their expansion was checked and they were not given the opportunity to reap the full benefits of it. In addition, the extreme cruelty which the Japanese demontrated in their occupation of various countries, especially China, pretty much cries out for redress.

In the case of Germany, I have similar if not identical thoughts. Ironically, hindsight makes even a stronger case than existed in December of 1941, because the full extent and nature of the barbarous things to be done by the Nazis were not yet known. The thought of all of Europe, both east and west, most of North Africa, and the western part of the Soviet Union under Nazi control is an awfully scary one. Sure, the Soviets might have prevailed anyway, but the Anglo-American offensives in North Africa and Italy did tie down more than neglible German troops and resources, which helped the Soviets indirectly. And the "Anglo" part of those offensives probably would not have been possible without the American part.

Well, I think I can hear the rebuttal already! The United States cannot take on the job of eradicating all evil from the world, as that would be impossible anyway, and the constant fighting would make the cure as bad as the disease. Quite true, so I think we have to carefully pick and choose, and I think the World War II choices were the correct ones. In fact, I think those choices were unique in their compelling nature.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-08-2010, 03:59 PM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,491 posts, read 5,816,695 times
Reputation: 3761
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
... I am constantly amazed at folks who think that the U.S. can or has ever been a wholly self-sufficient society.
I hear you. From my perspective the pivotal factor is that, although we COULD BE a wholly self-sufficient (and stagnant, and inbred) society, what price would we have to pay to achieve it? And, in view of that price, would we ever want to?

For me, the answer is a resounding "no".
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-08-2010, 06:23 PM
 
31,371 posts, read 33,527,788 times
Reputation: 14925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Everything Jtur88 writes above is true; we were not "forced" to go to war against either Germany or Japan.
I guess it depends on who the we are that you are talking about, because there is absolutely no way that any president could have withstood the political the anger of the American public by not decaring war on Japan. Perhaps some dictatorial government could have made such a decision but it would have been impossible for any democratically elected government to do so.

Just to illustrate the point, even though Roosevelt correctly decided upon the Europe first strategy and despite that strategy the actual first major efforts in the war was against Japan, the simple declaration of the Europe first strategy almost lost the Democrat Party the House and the Senate in the 1942 mid-term elections.

As for Roosevelt's decision on the Europe first strategy, what had Japan actually gained? A chain of barely developed islands, the Philippines and parts of French Indo-China, a source of natural resources for sure, but compared to the industrial resources of Western and Eastern Europe there... there simply is no comparison. Both the Soviet Union and Great Britain were hanging on by a thread, so who posed that greater threat, Japan and a handful of Pacific Islands or Nazi Germany in control of all of the industrial resources of all of Europe?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-08-2010, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 18,722,705 times
Reputation: 32426
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I guess it depends on who the we are that you are talking about, because there is absolutely no way that any president could have withstood the political the anger of the American public by not decaring war on Japan. Perhaps some dictatorial government could have made such a decision but it would have been impossible for any democratically elected government to do so.
Did you read my whole post or only the first sentence? I went on to say just what you said, but in slightly different words.
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top