And you realize that Germany would have destroyed the earth had it not been for the unmatched bravery of the Soviet troops in places like Stalingrad, right?
I mean…the war was seriously down to less than 30 meters of land. 30 meters between Nazi Germany being destroyed or Nazi Germany reaching the oil fields of Baku and breaking the back of the Eastern Front completely.
I am not under the impression that countries fight wars in order to learn lessons.
It’s true that going to Europe would have been useful in that case, but it could have killed any future American efforts anywhere to do anything (this is also my major problem with the Iraqi war). How would Mr. President and his helpers have made the war out to be a good thing to get involved in?
Six million Jews later, this argument seems a little apologetic for my tastes. I’m not convinced that it matters whether or not we can “work with” other countries in the future if we’re doing the right thing at time. We’ll put it this way: if your friends stop being your friends because they don’t like the fact that you’re doing the right thing, they probably aren’t worth having as friends anyway.
At that point, sure. But this ignores the fact that the European democracies did all in their power to keep Hitler happy and the United States sat quietly across the ocean while a madman pushed the whole continent to the brink. My point above was that proper gasp pre-emptive action would have saved the world a lot of trouble and the United States wouldn’t have been forced to hold hands with Stalin, who was arguably worse than Hitler anyway.
By the way, convince me of what? That the man didn’t tear the Constitution to shreds trying to fix an economy he failed to fix? Or that he didn’t just twiddle his thumbs while the Empire of the Sun came barrelling down on Pearl Harbor?
The way I see it, it took a war to fix the economy, communists to stop Germany, and Harry Truman with a well-placed bomb to stop Japan. What did FDR do besides attempt to convert the United States directly to communism? He even attempted to expand the Supreme Court so he could avoid having to deal with things like democracy and the rule of law. Yeah, great president, that one. James Madison’s corpse probably puked when he was elected.
Which has what to do with what I was saying? The other countries have nothing to do with this. America would stop itself from going to war. There would be no spreading of democracy, no nation-building, and no stopping a vile and corrupt version of socialism. You say you’re disgusted with the USSR. Who would stand in its way? France?
I don’t disagree that we all should have ganged up and stopped Hitler, but the people who were still sickened by WWI weren’t really ready and rarin’ to go fight another bloody conflict with Germany.
Or any conflict at all, for that matter.
The political scene at the time wouldn’t have allowed for the democracies to take on Germany. WWII was an inevitability, except in the most idealistic of cases.
Of course, I’m not apologizing for capitulation with Hitler. It was clearly a mistake. Like…the biggest mistake in the history of mankind. But realizing this, and being Mr. History Fag that I am, it also leaves me uppity and unpleasant when people say that because we don’t go in and bomb Such-and-Such a dictator, we were just being a bunch of Neville Chaimberlain’s. To that I say: Think McFly, think!
Plus, the world thought they learned a lesson from WWI. Different countries unwilling to bend and concede certain points lead to WWI. So, well, the European countries figured that if they were willing to perhaps bend a little bit, Hitler could be made happy. They didn’t know he was a power hungry fuck mook, and that couldn’t really be predicted.
And it’s always easier to look into the past and say what we should have done. I mean, now we look and say that if we eliminated Hitler at an early stage, no WWII, easy peasy japanesy. They though Hilter could be appeased… and they were wrong, in spades. But, how did anyone know that at the time? The Europeans were all flatened and still trying to rebuild, especially those damn surrender monkies in France. How dare they not be eager to enter a war after damn near an entire generation had just been killed off and their country side turned into a trench filled death field? Pussies.
Oh, yeah, for the record, Canada won WWI and the Germans were terrified of Canadians, that is until the ‘human shield’ Canucks in Normandialand were slaughtered in seconds thanks to the oh-so great planning of the Brittish. Therefore, we lost all psychological edge and most of our men, and were shelved as military joke, a status maintained by our peace-loving stance and low population.
Oh, and we freed Holland. Not ‘liberated’, because we didn’t kill all their civilians. Or any of them, for that matter.
Actually, who would stand in its way would be a strong, committed, democratic United States. Engaging Hitler from the start and removing him from Germany would have been the first step in preventing the USSR from clanging down the Iron Curtain in the first place. A United States that, from the start, had been unwilling to negotiate with/tolerate murderers would have been a far more effective opponent of the USSR than the generations of appeasers (and when I say “appeasers,” I mean to leave out Kennedy and Reagan - the only two twentieth-century presidents who actually behaved like presidents).
Say what you will about the inevitability of WWII, I’m not sure any of your argument supports this assertion. If there are good reasons to suspect that a certain dictator is potentially extraordinarily dangerous (see Kim Jong Il), appeasing him is nothing more than behaving like Neville Chamberlain.
Also, your entire argument about the democracies not being able to take on Germany is predicated on the assumption that leaders of democracies are incapable of taking action unless they hold some kind of referendum and the public agrees to it… which is just nonsense. Democratic leaders have a responsibility to do the right thing for their people, even if that means taking actions their people don’t support. You are taking as premises that the way our leaders act now (tied to polls, watching their political careers) is the way they ought to act, and I simply can’t agree.
This is what you get when you let political scientists run countries. Bad research. Like at universities.
They didn’t know he was a power hungry fuck mook, and that couldn’t really be predicted.
Oh for crying out freaking loud. Have you ever read If You Give A Mouse A Cookie? Children know more about human psychology than your average liberal.
How dare they not be eager to enter a war after damn near an entire generation had just been killed off and their country side turned into a trench filled death field? Pussies.
Unfortunately for the UN and pinkoes everywhere, sometimes doing the right thing means making difficult choices. I, for one, would rather take up residence in one of those trench-filled death fields than goose-step under the banner of the Third Reich.
Most everything that I have said in my last few posts (and the responses thereafter) is beside the point. What’s done is done and it can’t be changed. Thankfully, the Jewish faith has survived (and is actually tolerated in two countries of the world) and the USSR no longer exists. As far as human progress goes, this is better than it could have been. But there’s no sense in stopping now. We have a chance to do something great in Iraq, and also in Israel - provided the Bush administration can stop appeasing both sides. But we need real leadership to do that. To get back on topic: if Clark can beat Bush and lead us in the right direction, then hail to the chief.
Well, there goes my isolated peace-lovin idealism.
Oh wait, I’m not from the country which gave itself responsability over the free world. I’m from the one which helps in humanitarian efforts, the importance of which can never be overstated.
But the problem is:in France and the UK at that time, if the President/Prime Minister went against popular opinon and drug their nation into another bloody conflict the opponent parties could use the extreme unpopularity of the move to disolve the government and call for a new round of elections.
Then you get the same thing, which is WWII.
The certainly should have gone against popular opinion and stood up to Germany…but it just wasn’t going to happen.
Oh, and three countries for the Jews. Canada loves all peoples.
Yeah, you’re right. Capitulation was certainly better than losing their jobs.
Also, I agree on Canada. Regardless of what else I might think of Canada, they are a tolerant folk.
Shut up, fag!
Which would cartainly have existed if America’s only experience with international affairs was going off to some places we didn’t care about and spanking some guy who we had never heard of for being a bastard to people we knew nothing about! How do you propose uniting America to go out and be active in other countries if Americans’ response to other countries and their plights is to yawn?
How much of this had actually changed when we finally did join the war? Was the bombing of Pearl Harbor especially effective at making anyone care about Europe or Hitler… or was it especially educative on the peoples of the other continent? Or was it just the event that finally forced FDR to stop sitting on the TVA’s giant cock?