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.
It's even more funny to hear someone calling himself/herself "dumbdowndemocrats" defending imperialists like FDR and Truman.
I vote mostly Democrat these days and I don't think there could be a hot enough hell for those two to burn in.
Who the hell said I liked FDR or Truman ? Your dumbdowned in history hell Japanese soldiers were coming out of jungles decades after the war that tells the mind set of an fanatical race ready to die for the EMPEROR...MY aka is for my union its an honorary badge to me to go against the grain so to speak ...you will get over it in a week to ten days.
"Marshall was taking his orders from Harry Hopkins, who has been revealed as Stalin's most important agent in the US. Stalin never declared war on the Japanese and wanted the fighting to continue so that he could occupy Manchuria when he was ready, and when the Japanese were no longer able to resist. He didn't declare war on Japan until the Hiroshima bomb was dropped. Marshall still wouldn't accept surrender until the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The anticipated effects of atom bombing were too interesting to forego."
well considering that china was NOT a communist country until AFTER world war two
Don't be ridiculous. Chinese Communists were very powerful in the 1930s.
Quote:
thus hitler made an enemy of stalin, which put stalin on our side of the war.
You're just assuming that Hitler was a natural enemy of ours. Hitler had no desire to export his philosophy. The Soviets very explicitly did. It has been strongly alleged (but not proven) that the Soviets had agents high up in our government during Truman's presidency.
Last edited by roadtrip75; 08-08-2011 at 04:04 PM..
you are forgetting the britain had a TREATY WITH POLAND much like the current nato treaty.
Treaties are no justification for war. They are an excuse for war. Furthermore, those treaties were not just. England had no justification to attack Germany in 1914 nor in 1939, nor were they justified to take away German land.
Quote:
hitler would have used ANY reason to attack poland
It's a sign of how weak your argument is that you have to enter hypotheticals as evidence. Who cares what he would have done? The fact is that 1939 Poland was occupying German land. I'm not saying Germany was right to seize the land by force. I'm just saying that Hitler's desire to seize this land does not show any imperialistic desires. The people there spoke German. They were ethnically German. Trying to bring them into the fold does not show that Germany wanted to conquer England. There is no evidence that Britain acted defensively and there is considerable evidence that Britain acted offensively.
Don't be ridiculous. Chinese Communists were very powerful in the 1930s.
yes the chinese communists were powerful in the 30s, so what, they DID NOT rule china at the time.
Quote:
You're just assuming that Hitler was a natural enemy of ours. Hitler had no desire to export his philosophy. The Soviets very explicitly did. It has been strongly alleged (but not proven) that the Soviets had agents high up in our government during Truman's presidency.
when did i assume that hitler was a natural enemy of ours? remember that hitler declared war on the US AFTER japan bombed pearl harbor and we declared war on japan. hitler declared war based on a treaty they had with japan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadtrip75
Treaties are no justification for war. They are an excuse for war. Furthermore, those treaties were not just. England had no justification to attack Germany in 1914 nor in 1939, nor were they justified to take away German land.
treaties are absolutely a justification for war IF you have a treaty with one country, and they are attacked by another, which you have no treaty with, and part of the terns of the treaty is mutual protection, then you ARE justified in going to war.
Quote:
It's a sign of how weak your argument is that you have to enter hypotheticals as evidence. Who cares what he would have done?
there was NO hypothetical argument in my post, hitler in fact manufactured a reason to invade poland.
Quote:
The fact is that 1939 Poland was occupying German land. I'm not saying Germany was right to seize the land by force. I'm just saying that Hitler's desire to seize this land does not show any imperialistic desires. The people there spoke German. They were ethnically German. Trying to bring them into the fold does not show that Germany wanted to conquer England. There is no evidence that Britain acted defensively and there is considerable evidence that Britain acted offensively.
really, so then germany taking over the ENTIRE chech republic after being gien the sudaten lands means nothing to you? hitler, and many german leaders before him all the way back to the time of napoleon wanted to expand the german empire. heck in late 1800s, the kaiser had plans to invade the US in 1901 to force us to give them our interests in the phillipines and other places in the south pacific. hitler wanted to create a thousand year reich that ruled over ALL of europe, including the soviet union, as well as africa. and hitler wanted to eventually take over the world. yes britain did not act in defense of their own country in 1939, they DID act in defense of poland BY TREATY WITH POLAND.
you can keep claiming that treaties are not a reason to go to war, but the reality is that mutual defense treaties REQUIRE that those countries that signed the treaty come to the defense of those involved in the treaty. otherwise treaties are not worth the paper they are printed on. understand that a treaty is in fact a contract between countries. just like if you signed a mortgage contract, you would be obligated to abide by the terms of the contract. countries have to abide by the terms of any treaty they sign.
you may not bother to keep your word, spoken or written, but dont blame others when they DO keep their word.
yes the chinese communists were powerful in the 30s, so what, they DID NOT rule china at the time.
That's correct, the Communists had only partial control of China at the time. They did not completely take over until after we neutralized China's archenemy Japan. Nicely done!
Quote:
remember that hitler declared war on the US AFTER japan bombed pearl harbor
And all of this came long after we had started supporting the British and French. We started our conflict with Hitler.
Quote:
treaties are absolutely a justification for war
Nope. It does make a handy legalistic excuse, though.
It's funny how Britain's holy defense treaty with Poland suddenly vanished when the Soviet Union came knocking, eh?
Quote:
there was NO hypothetical argument in my post
Except for the part where you said "Hitler would have used any reason".
Quote:
hitler wanted to create a thousand year reich that ruled over ALL of europe, including the soviet union, as well as africa. and hitler wanted to eventually take over the world.
And Britain knew this in September 1939 because Hitler tried to take back German land from its neighbors?
And all of this came long after we had started supporting the British and French. We started our conflict with Hitler.
we were supporting allies with materials. we had no conflict with germany until hitler declared war on us.
Quote:
Nope. It does make a handy legalistic excuse, though.
rubbish.
Quote:
It's funny how Britain's holy defense treaty with Poland suddenly vanished when the Soviet Union came knocking, eh?
true, but then again britain knew that if they went to war with russia at the same time as germany, they would go down in flames quickly.
Quote:
Except for the part where you said "Hitler would have used any reason".
yes i did say that, but it was reality not a hypothetical statement. hitler had already fabricated a reason to invade poland. if that didnt work he would have fabricated another. he was looking for a legal reason to keep britain and france out of his war with poland. he wanted to take them down one country at a time.
Quote:
And Britain knew this in September 1939 because Hitler tried to take back German land from its neighbors?
Hitler's avowed aim was to establish a New Order of absolute Nazi German hegemony in continental Europe. His foreign and domestic policies had the goal of seizing Lebensraum ("living space") for the Aryan people. This included the rearmament of Germany, resulting in the invasion of Poland by the Wehrmacht in September 1939, leading to the outbreak of World War II in Europe.[2]
Quote:
In private discussions in 1939, Hitler described Britain as the main enemy that had to be defeated. In his view, Poland's obliteration as a sovereign nation was the necessary prelude to that goal by securing the eastern flank and also adding to Germany's Lebensraum.[146] As part of his anti-British stance, Hitler wanted Poland to be either a German satellite state or otherwise neutralized to secure the Reich's eastern flank and to evade the effects of a possible British blockade.[147] Initially, Hitler favoured the idea of a satellite state, which was however rejected by the Polish government. Therefore, Hitler decided to invade and destroy Polish sovereignty and independence, and he made this the main German foreign policy goal of 1939.[148] Hitler was offended by the British "guarantee" of Polish independence issued on 31 March 1939, and told his associates that "I shall brew them a devil's drink".[149] In a speech in Wilhelmshaven for the launch of the battleship Tirpitz on 1 April 1939, Hitler first threatened to denounce the Anglo-German Naval Agreement if the British persisted with their "encirclement" policy he perceived by the British guarantee of Polish independence.[149] On 3 April 1939, Hitler ordered the military to start preparing for Fall Weiss (Case White), the plan for a German invasion on 25 August 1939.[148] This was followed by a speech before the Reichstag on 28 April 1939, in which Hitler renounced both the Anglo-German Naval Agreement and the German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact. In August 1939, Hitler spoke to his generals that his original plan for 1939 had to "... establish an acceptable relationship with Poland in order to fight against the West" but since Poland refused to become a German satellite, Hitler believed he had no choice other than wiping Poland off the map.[150]
we were supporting allies with materials. we had no conflict with germany until hitler declared war on us.
Nice try but no cigar. We entered the war when we began supporting the Allies.
Quote:
true, but then again britain knew that if they went to war with russia at the same time as germany, they would go down in flames quickly.
Britain didn't have to go to war with Germany at all! Neither in WWI nor in WWII.
Quote:
In private discussions in 1939, Hitler described Britain as the main enemy that had to be defeated. In his view, Poland's obliteration as a sovereign nation was the necessary prelude to that goal by securing the eastern flank and also adding to Germany's Lebensraum.[146] As part of his anti-British stance, Hitler wanted Poland to be either a German satellite state or otherwise neutralized to secure the Reich's eastern flank and to evade the effects of a possible British blockade.[147] Initially, Hitler favoured the idea of a satellite state, which was however rejected by the Polish government. Therefore, Hitler decided to invade and destroy Polish sovereignty and independence, and he made this the main German foreign policy goal of 1939.[148] Hitler was offended by the British "guarantee" of Polish independence issued on 31 March 1939, and told his associates that "I shall brew them a devil's drink".
I'm pleasantly surprised that Wikipedia hasn't been totally corrupted yet. This text supports my view. According to your quotes, Hitler's desire for Poland was defensive and his hostility toward England was fear rather than aggression.
While the bombs were devastating in reality it probably saved the lives of many Japanese. had we not used them and they continued with their beliefs the homeland would have been like other battles:
Okinawa - 6% survived
Iwo jima - less than 1% survived
Saipan - less than 1% survived
and so on.
Too bad they, and their equivalents in America like Lindbergh, weren't listened to.
Wrong. They would surrender, just not unconditionally. To idiot jingoist Americans there is not a difference, but in the (sane) rest of the world, there is.
Then they should have surrendered "Unconditionally".
Which they did, after having been firebombed and nuked. They had no card to play. We were attacked and we were the ones bringing them to their knees. We and only we called the shots. They were allowed to keep Hirohito only because we knew he would be useful.
What part of that can you not comprehend?
Defending mass murdering agressors. No class.
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.
We entered the war when we began supporting the Allies.
