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.
I'll have to read more. I don't know that much prewar history. But I do know that we have since used Vietnamese Nationalism to our advantage, by turning the Vietnamese against China, because Vietnam feels more threatened by China now than by pretty much anyone else.
We could have easily turned Korean Nationalism against China as well, but instead we turned North Korea into a Chinese protectorate.
Vietnamese nationalism (and this is what Eisenhower says in government archives) was a threat as in if Vietnam was able to promote a successful nationalist policy independent of other major powers, that could influence Suharto and other right wing Asian leaders to turn away from US influence.
East Asian nationalism was always a larger factor than Marx ever was. The fact that we destroyed their economy with napalm and bombing made them dependent and ended that immediate threat.
If East Asian nationalism put Japan in a place of power as a financier, then that would be deadly for us.
WWII wasn't about national survival, either. Hitler wouldn't have dared invade the U.S., as he knew the American population was (and still is) armed to the teeth and would have done anything to defend themselves and their families.
Hitler invaded lots of well armed nations. I get it that you’re all lathered up about the Second Amendment, but let’s not be silly. Come on. SMH
America was never threatened by Japan or Germany. And neither Germany nor Japan ever wanted a war with America. They were both terrified of the United States.
The United States was already de-facto at war with Japan and Germany long before Pearl Harbor. If you think America was "neutral" before Pearl Harbor, you're a moron. Do you know what the lend-lease act is?
Seriously, no we weren't. Even Hitler said in his speech declaring war on America, that no one would dare go to war with the United States unless the United States provoked a war. Hitler was terrified enough of the Soviet Union, who had a tiny fraction of the industrial capacity of the United States.
Crazy talk. There is no attraction to the novel idiocy of wondering if World War II needed to be fought or not. But let's pretend for a moment that everything you've stated above is correct. IF the USA stayed out of WWII and let Japan and Germany run buck wild on their neighbors....then EVENTUALLY they would have been a huge threat to the U.S.
Crazy talk. There is no attraction to the novel idiocy of wondering if World War II needed to be fought or not. But let's pretend for a moment that everything you've stated above is correct. IF the USA stayed out of WWII and let Japan and Germany run buck wild on their neighbors....then EVENTUALLY they would have been a huge threat to the U.S.
Firstly they never would have won. China and Russia would eventually beat them.
Secondly, the problem is that we escalated the wars in Europe and Asia, they could have been resolved without a world war.
WW2 was the world vs a common evil that was obvious to us. Vietnam was "why are we here again?"..
The same question we ask about Iraq today. Using war as foreign policy was one of America's greatest failures in the 20th century. World War II was the only war we fought with some real, honest justification in the entire 20th century.
But war itself seems to be a necessary social phenomenon.
War is the way humanity advances technologically. Since all humans depend on technology to live, and always have as a species, war always speeds up technological development which is then used in the long period of peace that follows.
America has shown that the threat of war is enough to speed things up. The cold war never broke out into great combat, but the fear that war brings was enough to really advance our technology.
And that fear extended into outer space, when no threat really existed at the time. By putting the space race into a threat that the Soviets may win by landing a man on the moon first, it was enough to incite us into competition with them 50 years ago.
There are some Americans who still suspect the Russians have a secret moon base, ready to kill us all in our beds as we slumber innocently, to this day.
Firstly they never would have won. China and Russia would eventually beat them.
Not certain that would have been the case. Nevertheless, the alternative isn't much better: have China and Russia ruling Asia and Europe. Thanks but no thanks. I'll pass.
That’s easy: no country is justified when attempting to put their fingers on the scales of an internecine war unless they have a pressing national or humanitarian interest in the outcome. People resent being pushed around by outsiders. It wasn’t our place to say that the communists had no business controlling Vietnam.
Where we initially screwed up was letting it be known in the ‘50s that we were gonna finance France’s attempt to take control of the country again, and that’s exactly what we did. Of course, that failed too. The Vietnamese would never forget that.
I could be mistaken, but I think rebeldor was saying that WWII was also unjustified, and that is what I was questioning. I agree with you 100% about Vietnam.
Edit: Aha. Should have finished reading the thread before saying "I think, etc..."
Crazy talk. There is no attraction to the novel idiocy of wondering if World War II needed to be fought or not. But let's pretend for a moment that everything you've stated above is correct. IF the USA stayed out of WWII and let Japan and Germany run buck wild on their neighbors....then EVENTUALLY they would have been a huge threat to the U.S.
Do you know WWII history at all?
Germany didn't even want war with Britain, and Hitler practically begged Britain to be his ally. Britain declared war on Germany and Hitler didn't even respond until Britain brought nearly 400,000 troops into France the following year, and France began to build up forces for an invasion of Germany. Hitler preemptively-invaded France, the Low-Countries, and Norway, and chased the British forces to Dunkirk, where he issued a stop order, which let Britain evacuate its army.
The actual goal of Hitler was to divide the world up into spheres of influence of roughly equal size, equal resources, and thus equal power, to maintain a balance. It was not to conquer the world. Otherwise, why would he have had any allies at all? He wanted absolutely nothing to do with America.
War is the way humanity advances technologically. Since all humans depend on technology to live, and always have as a species, war always speeds up technological development which is then used in the long period of peace that follows.
Think of "states" like animals. Every state is trying to become as powerful as it can, not necessarily to kill or conquer the rest, but just to survive. And as a general rule, the bigger the state, the more powerful the state.
If your state is small, and you feel threatened by a larger state, then you would ally with another state, where your combined power was equal or greater than the larger state. This system of alliances was necessary to create a "balance of power". And that balance of power prevented war, because neither side would have an advantage.
In early American History we played the rivalry of European powers against each other. Britain couldn't bully us, because if we allied with France we could together defeat Britain. And France couldn't bully us, because if we allied with Britain we could beat France.
Or in the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers #11
Quote:
"There can be no doubt that the continuance of the Union under an efficient government would put it in our power, at a period not very distant, to create a navy which, if it could not vie with those of the great maritime powers, would at least be of respectable weight if thrown into the scale of either of two contending parties. This would be more peculiarly the case in relation to operations in the West Indies. A few ships of the line, sent opportunely to the reinforcement of either side, would often be sufficient to decide the fate of a campaign, on the event of which interests of the greatest magnitude were suspended. Our position is, in this respect, a most commanding one. And if to this consideration we add that of the usefulness of supplies from this country, in the prosecution of military operations in the West Indies, it will readily be perceived that a situation so favorable would enable us to bargain with great advantage for commercial privileges. A price would be set not only upon our friendship, but upon our neutrality. By a steady adherence to the Union we may hope, erelong, to become the arbiter of Europe in America, and to be able to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interest may dictate.
But in the reverse of this eligible situation, we shall discover that the rivalships of the parts would make them checks upon each other, and would frustrate all the tempting advantages which nature has kindly placed within our reach. In a state so insignificant our commerce would be a prey to the wanton intermeddlings of all nations at war with each other; who, having nothing to fear from us, would with little scruple or remorse, supply their wants by depredations on our property as often as it fell in their way. The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral."
It isn't that war is necessary for progress, but that survival/preservation requires a nation to become as powerful as possible. And that requires technology, money, territory, markets, resources, the most-advanced weapons, and as much economic-growth as possible.
Basically, the same "competition" that drives innovation in business, drives innovation in social and political-organization.
Prior to WWII, there were still a multitude of major powers vying for hegemony. After WWII, all were crushed except two. And within their spheres of influence, which they dominated absolutely like a Hobbesian Leviathan. They could pool the labor, resources, and markets of nearly half the world under a single system. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, many believed there would only be one power left which was so far-and-away dominant that it could use its power to create a "New World Order" which would finally overturn the old "Rule of the Jungle", and bring peace to the entire world(IE use its power to spread Americanism and prevent war by being the "policeman of the world").
But Russia didn't want to just let us run the world, and has engaged us in never-ending proxy wars, especially in the oil-rich countries in the Middle-East. China is using its position to challenge American hegemony in Asia, and even Europe suddenly wants to become a global power again under a new brand, the European Union. So now everyone is back to trying to undermine each other.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-03-2018 at 01:43 AM..
If you should ever join the military, go to war and find your self killing people while bullets fly past your head I want you to ask yourself one question. Is this romantic?
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.
