NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the US have entered World War II before Pearl Harbor ever happened?

We essentially were.

I mean troops and everything. not just supplies.

No.

No, we should have been doing everything we can to protect our interests but still stay out of war. Supplies is one thing, we as a country had pplenty of those, but sending men should have been a last resort, which is what happened.

hitler was plotting against us before Pearl Harbor.

hitler was plotting against us before Pearl Harbor.
There were no plans for the immediate conquer of North America. My guess is that had Japan not attacked and got the US in the war and had Germany won the European continent, he would have called a peace and allowed at least a decade of rebuilding and brainwashing to pass. Then he would've moved on to UK and US.

Poll really doesn't matter.

The US didn't have the troops to use and the people were in an isolationist mood.

Never mind the fact they were starting to get out of the depression.

I mean troops and everything. not just supplies.
Americans were escaping to Canada to join the Royal Army, Marines, Navy, etc.

Poll really doesn't matter.

The US didn't have the troops to use and the people were in an isolationist mood.

Never mind the fact they were starting to get out of the depression.
Only because of the war.

Americans were escaping to Canada to join the Royal Army, Marines, Navy, etc.

A miniscule amount were, yes, not enough to entail that the US supported intervention in Europe or the Pacific.

A miniscule amount were, yes, not enough to entail that the US supported intervention in Europe or the Pacific.
There were entire brigades and such of purely American (so that they could be fed American food and Brits fed British food, etc.), like one was called the Eagle Brigade, and there was an Abraham Lincoln Brigade, etc.

The US actually should have never backed out of Europe, they could have played a decisive factor at the Munich conference. Neville Chamberlain had already decided he would give Hitler the Sudetenland in exchange for an agreement not to take Bohemia and Moravia, and not to engage in war. This was not liked by the French representative Edourd Daladier, he felt the Czechs were being sold out, but he also knew France was in no condition to fight a war against Nazi Germany alone, and did not have enough diplomatic power to gamble with Hitler.
So he contacted the United States, and asked if the US would support France in opposing Chamberlains basic sellout of Czechoslovakia (France had close ties with the only democracy in Central Europe). If the US would support France, France would tell Hitler it was no deal. The US Government refused to intervene, it was not their conflict they said, so Daladier was dragged kicking and screaming to agree to Munich, this show of force may have toppled Hitler, and certainly would have crushed Germany.

There were entire brigades and such of purely American (so that they could be fed American food and Brits fed British food, etc.), like one was called the Eagle Brigade, and there was an Abraham Lincoln Brigade, etc.

The Lincoln Brigade was one of the International Brigades formed to fight with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, I've never heard of the Eagle Brigade, I have heard of Eagle Squadron, which was an American RAF fighter squadron.

The US actually should have never backed out of Europe, they could have played a decisive factor at the Munich conference. Neville Chamberlain had already decided he would give Hitler the Sudetenland in exchange for an agreement not to take Bohemia and Moravia, and not to engage in war. This was not liked by the French representative Edourd Daladier, he felt the Czechs were being sold out, but he also knew France was in no condition to fight a war against Nazi Germany alone, and did not have enough diplomatic power to gamble with Hitler.
So he contacted the United States, and asked if the US would support France in opposing Chamberlains basic sellout of Czechoslovakia (France had close ties with the only democracy in Central Europe). If the US would support France, France would tell Hitler it was no deal. The US Government refused to intervene, it was not their conflict they said, so Daladier was dragged kicking and screaming to agree to Munich, this show of force may have toppled Hitler, and certainly would have crushed Germany.

I like how the Czechs weren't invited to that conference...although, the United States hadn't really begun recovering from the Depression at that point and they were in a really isolationist mood. They wouldn't be in much of a position to fight a good war either. Had we got in at that point, before our economy recovered by supplying allies the war may have ended with an allied defeat.

The Lincoln Brigade was one of the International Brigades formed to fight with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, I've never heard of the Eagle Brigade, I have heard of Eagle Squadron, which was an American RAF fighter squadron.
Oh, okay, yea, they were squadrons. Weren't there more than just the Eagle Squadron? I was under the impression there were quite a few Americans in WWII before Pearl Harbor. (Obviously not massive armies, but you know what I mean.)

I like how the Czechs weren't invited to that conference...although, the United States hadn't really begun recovering from the Depression at that point and they were in a really isolationist mood. They wouldn't be in much of a position to fight a good war either. Had we got in at that point, before our economy recovered by supplying allies the war may have ended with an allied defeat.

True, the Czechs were not invited. But the point is a show of force was all that was needed. There was a widespread conspiracy within the military that Hitler was leading Germany to disaster with the West, plans were drawn up once the Sudetenland crisis began that if the West went to war, the military heirarchy would topple Hitler and make peace without another Versailles humiliation. But, becuase Hitler got the Sudetenland without war, his popularity shot through the roof, and toppling him became unthinkable.
Furthermore the great German tanks that stormed the Czechs, French, and BEF in 1939 and 1940 were all based on Czech designs. The Czechs had the best tanks and tank technology in the world, the inheriting of Bohemia and Moravia gave German access to this technology to develope their tanks that would be so successful against the West.

Oh, okay, yea, they were squadrons. Weren't there more than just the Eagle Squadron? I was under the impression there were quite a few Americans in WWII before Pearl Harbor. (Obviously not massive armies, but you know what I mean.)

Yes, there was more then one squadron, Eagle Squadron was just the most famous. As for the Army, there were American volunteers, but as far as I know they were never organized together as Americans in any units larger then a platoon.
And of course, you might be able to count the Atlantic Charter duties of the USN as aiding the war. After the Atlantic Charter was signed in Newfoundland in the summer of 1941, the US Navy took over all ASW patrol duties in the Western half of the Atlantic, and declared they would sink any German U-boats found in this area. So the US NAvy was effectively at war with the Kreigsmarine since August 1941, this is how two destroyers were sunk.

well being a person who knows way too much history for my own good i have to say it was wise to wait to enter the war. The United States military was in no condition to fight at that point whether in the air, on the ground or at sea. Pearl Harbor was a sad, maybe it could have been prevented... that is not important here though. what is, is that Pearl Harbor was the kind of event that would have only prominted the US to enter, much like WWI and The Mexican War, and to a lesser extent the Civil War (for the North) and The Spanish American War. It was always some kind of provocation that would break the bounds. Still, lets face the facts. US pilots were flying outdated equipment, ships were still WWI era, and tanks - well those stunk throughout the war but oh well.

Actually an argument can be made the Navy was ready to fight a war, just like in the previous Great War it was the only service that could be considered battle-worthy. By 1941 the new South Dakota and North Carolina class of Battleships were completed or completing, the CV's except the Essex's were available for duty, the destroyer fleet was new and impressive, and the Brooklyn class CL's were completed or completing, along with new CA's.

We essentially were.

Since your one of the few opinions I not only respect but also consider learned and knowledgeable when it comes to the WWII debates I seem to be always in, do you think we should have been in either theater before Pearl Harbor?

Since your one of the few opinions I not only respect but also consider learned and knowledgeable when it comes to the WWII debates I seem to be always in, do you think we should have been in either theater before Pearl Harbor?
A little clarification?

A little clarification?

Should the United States have declared war on Japan for flagrantly violating China and massacring it's people, and growing increasingly belligerent towards Britian and the US. And should the US have been directly involved in the European War for Germany's invasion of Poland and trouncing of France and the Low Countries. Or should it have stuck with what it did, or perhaps more or less aid.

also being of Slovak heritage... FYI- very close to czech, the languages are around 75-50% the same, and yes i speak some slovak... I think Neville Chamberlin was amongst the most naïve meen ever to walk on the earth. And he did sell out the Czechs. Between the Czechs and Slovaks no matter where they are (generalizing i know) on average some of the nicest people in Europe or wherever the currently reside. Thus Neville, I would kick you were it counts, if you were still alive.

Should the United States have declared war on Japan for flagrantly violating China and massacring it's people, and growing increasingly belligerent towards Britian and the US. And should the US have been directly involved in the European War for Germany's invasion of Poland and trouncing of France and the Low Countries. Or should it have stuck with what it did, or perhaps more or less aid.
Well, I tend to have the same stance on all wars. If something is a direct threat to us (Revolutionary War, Civil War, the way we actually entered WWII, probably some others I'm forgetting) then we are forced to get involved, obviously. In other situations, like the first part of World War II, the Gulf War, etc. in which our allies or our overseas interests are being directly threatened, we should make an effort to enter the war to protect our interests if 1) we can support our own war efforts, 2) the threatened nations request our assistance. I think that Britain asked for our assistance in the European theater, but we denied it, and I agree with that becuase I don't think we could have necessarily supported our war effort. I don't know that China, Korea, or Russia ever asked us for assistance, and even if we had, we couldn't have really supported our war effort in the Pacific theater either. There is a quote of some American worker saying "Thank God for Hitler" not because the worker was an anti-semite but because Hitler created a ton of jobs in America producing supplies for our allies, strengthening our economy and putting America in a position to successfully support a war. I really like the Churchill quote however. "To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."

also being of Slovak heritage... FYI- very close to czech, the languages are around 75-50% the same, and yes i speak some slovak... I think Neville Chamberlin was amongst the most naïve meen ever to walk on the earth. And he did sell out the Czechs. Between the Czechs and Slovaks no matter where they are (generalizing i know) on average some of the nicest people in Europe or wherever the currently reside. Thus Neville, I would kick you were it counts, if you were still alive.

Well, don't let Von Witzleben see this post! He'll tell you the Czechs were planning a pre-emptive strike to take over all of Germany! No doubt the Poles were in on it as well.....


the previous sentences are pure sarcasm.........

Well, don't let Von Witzleben see this post! He'll tell you the Czechs were planning a pre-emptive strike to take over all of Germany! No doubt the Poles were in on it as well.....


the previous sentences are pure sarcasm.........

I'll take it you saw the exchange between him and I and several others in the Atom Bomb page

I'll take it you saw the exchange between him and I and several others in the Atom Bomb page
Post #25 in case you missed it...sufficient enough answer about my thought on the US getting into WWII?

I'll take it you saw the exchange between him and I and several others in the Atom Bomb page

Yeah. It's a pity he doesn't know a thing about history, except what he twists around to his own "theories".

Well, I tend to have the same stance on all wars. If something is a direct threat to us (Revolutionary War, Civil War, the way we actually entered WWII, probably some others I'm forgetting) then we are forced to get involved, obviously. In other situations, like the first part of World War II, the Gulf War, etc. in which our allies or our overseas interests are being directly threatened, we should make an effort to enter the war to protect our interests if 1) we can support our own war efforts, 2) the threatened nations request our assistance. I think that Britain asked for our assistance in the European theater, but we denied it, and I agree with that becuase I don't think we could have necessarily supported our war effort. I don't know that China, Korea, or Russia ever asked us for assistance, and even if we had, we couldn't have really supported our war effort in the Pacific theater either. There is a quote of some American worker saying "Thank God for Hitler" not because the worker was an anti-semite but because Hitler created a ton of jobs in America producing supplies for our allies, strengthening our economy and putting America in a position to successfully support a war. I really like the Churchill quote however. "To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."

I see, I must say I hadn't actually thought of the US's ability to maintain a war supply type status in 1939, I've always thought in 1941 terms for 1939. By 1941 the US had been steadily increasing the supplies it sent to the Empire and Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, and China, so the economy had been growing steadily. I've always supported intervention in the Pacific though, China unlike most other countries was one we had a long and warm relationship with. We were the only powerful nation to object to it's slow dismantling during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and most Americans felt an affinity to the Chinese.
I agree with you on the European Theater, though it is becuase I feel we had more pressing matters in the Pacific in 1939 until the Fall of France or even until Barborossa, but the state of the economy hardens that argument.
Just out of curiosity, where did you get that quote from, I'm not questioning it's existence, I read it in Franklin & Winston and The Second World War by John Keegan, just wondering if you might have seen it in period papers or something, I've always wondered if it was publicized during the war.

And I didn't go over the post, I had typed my response and went to post it but I had apparently been logged in for over an hour or so, so I wasn't logged in any longer so I had to login and re-type the response.

I see, I must say I hadn't actually thought of the US's ability to maintain a war supply type status in 1939, I've always thought in 1941 terms for 1939. By 1941 the US had been steadily increasing the supplies it sent to the Empire and Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, and China, so the economy had been growing steadily. I've always supported intervention in the Pacific though, China unlike most other countries was one we had a long and warm relationship with. We were the only powerful nation to object to it's slow dismantling during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and most Americans felt an affinity to the Chinese.
I agree with you on the European Theater, though it is becuase I feel we had more pressing matters in the Pacific in 1939 until the Fall of France or even until Barborossa, but the state of the economy hardens that argument.
Just out of curiosity, where did you get that quote from, I'm not questioning it's existence, I read it in Franklin & Winston and The Second World War by John Keegan, just wondering if you might have seen it in period papers or something, I've always wondered if it was publicized during the war.

And I didn't go over the post, I had typed my response and went to post it but I had apparently been logged in for over an hour or so, so I wasn't logged in any longer so I had to login and re-type the response.

The Churchill quote or the worker quote?

The Churchill quote or the worker quote?

The Churchill one, though I'll confess I've never heard the worker one but it certainly makes sense and was probably said.

yes we should have entered the war but i can only say that after knowing what Hitelr had done in Europe with the Jews and everyone else. at the time it seemed liek a better idea to jsut stay out of the conflict but when japan attacked we had no choice. so the short answer is yes, the long answer is...only because after we won the war we knew what was going on.

There are two issues here. Should the US entered the war earlier? For the good of the US it’s economy and company profits then yes the answer is no. But to support democracy, show disapproval towards tyranny and morally then probably yes.
I mean nothing by this but the US was the only country in the war to make a profit out of WWII. They bought shares in US countries from the UK gov. at between 5 and 10 cents in the dollar. Support they gave but it was paid for, a behind the scenes ally they may have been but not a supportive or warm one.
I have heard that Churchill knew two days before the attack on Pearl Harbour that it was going to take place (as they had cracked the enigma codes, contrary to Hollywood’s latest history re-write,. It is said that he chose for the good of his people to withhold this information so the US would enter the war. So the same process was at work there, putting your own people first.
As far as US pilots in the Battle of Britain etc to my knowledge there was 14, Canadians, Poles etc each far outnumbered any US representation.
I don’t blame the US for holding back, but to say they could not enter the war is different from saying it would not have been best for them.

Should the United States have declared war on Japan for flagrantly violating China and massacring it's people, and growing increasingly belligerent towards Britian and the US. And should the US have been directly involved in the European War for Germany's invasion of Poland and trouncing of France and the Low Countries. Or should it have stuck with what it did, or perhaps more or less aid.


I think that the Us should do what they did. It was really more the Russians fight and the British. And as souch the Japanese can be seen as a never no minder... the us navy could have kept them more or less out of the game for a very long time if the army and marines had to be directet to europe

ps. most of the chinese fled into the country side so only about 200,000 were killed.. as far as i remember..

what makes on think though.. the Japanese attacked pearl so that the Us wouldnt sent naval support in to stop them taking the oil fields(they also took out the british air basess with around 430 planes).. but the oil was for their army... so what was their plan that they needed oil for ?

As Kirtondom rightly points out the US were the only country to make a profit from WWii. As to whether the US should have joined the war earlier, I really don't think they had much of a choice. Althought the main battleground was in Europe if the Germans (refuse to call them Nazi's, there were German) had of successfully invaded the UK then it was only a matter of time before the US would have been threatened with invasion as our commonwealth territories would have been within easy striking distance of the US (Canada, Hong Kong and the carribean islands et sec) as well as Japan. German scientists had also developed long range rockets (which became the basis of the American Space program) which, given time for further development, were more than capable of reaching any eastern US city.

There were numerous American's involved in the Battle of Britain who voluntary signed up via the Royal Canadian Airforce, they mad a vital contributions to the UK's war effort for which we will be eternally gtateful.

However the US governement made millions of dollars from their so called Allies, look at the lend/lease program adopted by the US government. The UK inherited a fleet of WW1 ships that were due to be scrapped in agreement to lease it's territories to the US. It will be interesting to see what happens to all of the USAAF bases currently located on British territories (including the UK, Cyprus & Crete) in 2040 when the 99 year leases expire.

There are two issues here. Should the US entered the war earlier? For the good of the US it’s economy and company profits then yes the answer is no. But to support democracy, show disapproval towards tyranny and morally then probably yes.
I mean nothing by this but the US was the only country in the war to make a profit out of WWII. They bought shares in US countries from the UK gov. at between 5 and 10 cents in the dollar. Support they gave but it was paid for, a behind the scenes ally they may have been but not a supportive or warm one.
I have heard that Churchill knew two days before the attack on Pearl Harbour that it was going to take place (as they had cracked the enigma codes, contrary to Hollywood’s latest history re-write,. It is said that he chose for the good of his people to withhold this information so the US would enter the war. So the same process was at work there, putting your own people first.
As far as US pilots in the Battle of Britain etc to my knowledge there was 14, Canadians, Poles etc each far outnumbered any US representation.
I don’t blame the US for holding back, but to say they could not enter the war is different from saying it would not have been best for them.


Actually 240 or so men volunteered for the fight. 77 died.

Actually 240 or so men volunteered for the fight. 77 died.
Was this in the fighter squadrons or the conflict over all?
I would be suprised if there was that many in the fighter squadrons, but you could be correct.
My hat's off to them what ever they did.

Actually 240 or so men volunteered for the fight. 77 died.

You'll find this link will tell you about the number of people who fought in the Battle of Britain and to what nationality they belonged to. America had 7 pilots, but that is certainly better than none.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/the_few.htm

I would think that, despite what most of these replies may imply, the USA has an interest in world politics that extends beyond how overseas conflict would affect its own borders. Humanitarian missions and military aid given to friendly nations *well before* Mr. Nazi is banging down the front door would have been just swell during WWII.

All the things they taught us about WWII are wrong. Think about below issues:Before WWII; Secret Supreme Jewish Organisation wanted to form a country in Jerusalem region but none of the jews living in peace among the Europe wanted to move middle east. They did not want to leave their homes. So the Secret Supreme Jewish Organisation supported Hitler and Nazis. For example, all steel and gun production of Nazis was supported by a multimillionaire Jew named Krupp. Everybody knows that. Their plan was to group the jews in Europe by force in concentration camps, and then later send them to Jerusalem in groups. SS forces and jewish organisations worked together to reach that aim. Hitler was aiming to get rid of Jews from Europe and Jewish Organisation was aiming to force jewish community to go to Jerusalem. They did not want to destroy the jews; they wanted to force them to move to Jerusalem !! So Hitler and his Jewish supporters worked together to reach that aim. As you know, one can not be a jew unless he was born as a jew. It is a racist ideology. So jews do not accept some communities (like gypsies) as jews since they became jewish later. During the WWII, a lot of gypsies and other small communities who accept themselves as jews were killed to protect the REAL jewish blood. As a conclusion" Jews both acquired their aim to form a country, kill those people who they do not accept as real jews and gain sympathy among all societies as victims (!) of a terrible halocaust (!). Gentlemen, there has never been a Jewish Halocaust. The concentration camps had neither gas rooms nor places to burn dead bodies. All those items were added later by US forces to prove (!) that US was right to attack Nazis. It is the same situation today. Look at Iraq

hitler was plotting against us before Pearl Harbor.

It was not Hitler who attacked Pearl Harbour, wakey! wakey!.

It was the Japanese, so the the history books and about three or four films devoted to the subject tell us.

The sad truth is that The US knew of the killing of mass Jews and others, well before Pearl Harbor.
We did nothing.
We knew this becuase of the Exodus of the people lucky enough to escape.
Many of them sent thier children to other European countries, to seek work and later bring the rest of the family.

America accepted none of these children.

So, the question "Should we have done something earlier?"

Yes we should have.

We didnt, and couldnt.
The U.S naval and military strengths were at an embarrassingly low level of readiness.

All the things they taught us about WWII are wrong. Think about below issues:Before WWII; Secret Supreme Jewish Organisation wanted to form a country in Jerusalem region but none of the jews living in peace among the Europe wanted to move middle east. They did not want to leave their homes. So the Secret Supreme Jewish Organisation supported Hitler and Nazis. For example, all steel and gun production of Nazis was supported by a multimillionaire Jew named Krupp. Everybody knows that. Their plan was to group the jews in Europe by force in concentration camps, and then later send them to Jerusalem in groups. SS forces and jewish organisations worked together to reach that aim. Hitler was aiming to get rid of Jews from Europe and Jewish Organisation was aiming to force jewish community to go to Jerusalem. They did not want to destroy the jews; they wanted to force them to move to Jerusalem !! So Hitler and his Jewish supporters worked together to reach that aim. As you know, one can not be a jew unless he was born as a jew. It is a racist ideology. So jews do not accept some communities (like gypsies) as jews since they became jewish later. During the WWII, a lot of gypsies and other small communities who accept themselves as jews were killed to protect the REAL jewish blood. As a conclusion" Jews both acquired their aim to form a country, kill those people who they do not accept as real jews and gain sympathy among all societies as victims (!) of a terrible halocaust (!). Gentlemen, there has never been a Jewish Halocaust. The concentration camps had neither gas rooms nor places to burn dead bodies. All those items were added later by US forces to prove (!) that US was right to attack Nazis. It is the same situation today. Look at Iraq

You need to stop reading Neo Nazi propoganda.

Americans were escaping to Canada to join the Royal Army, Marines, Navy, etc.

Escaping? Thats a stretch isn't it? SOME Americans joined the RAF too. They did so for their own reasons. The RAF was glad to have them too.

There were entire brigades and such of purely American (so that they could be fed American food and Brits fed British food, etc.), like one was called the Eagle Brigade, and there was an Abraham Lincoln Brigade, etc.

The Abraham Lincoln brigade fought in the Spanish Civil war....and were chastized when they returned because they fought for the communists.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/abe-brigade.html

The "eagle brigade" did not exist as far as I can find so if you can provide a link....

All the things they taught us about WWII are wrong. Think about below issues:Before WWII; Secret Supreme Jewish Organisation wanted to form a country in Jerusalem region but none of the jews living in peace among the Europe wanted to move middle east. They did not want to leave their homes. So the Secret Supreme Jewish Organisation supported Hitler and Nazis. For example, all steel and gun production of Nazis was supported by a multimillionaire Jew named Krupp. Everybody knows that. Their plan was to group the jews in Europe by force in concentration camps, and then later send them to Jerusalem in groups. SS forces and jewish organisations worked together to reach that aim. Hitler was aiming to get rid of Jews from Europe and Jewish Organisation was aiming to force jewish community to go to Jerusalem. They did not want to destroy the jews; they wanted to force them to move to Jerusalem !! So Hitler and his Jewish supporters worked together to reach that aim. As you know, one can not be a jew unless he was born as a jew. It is a racist ideology. So jews do not accept some communities (like gypsies) as jews since they became jewish later. During the WWII, a lot of gypsies and other small communities who accept themselves as jews were killed to protect the REAL jewish blood. As a conclusion" Jews both acquired their aim to form a country, kill those people who they do not accept as real jews and gain sympathy among all societies as victims (!) of a terrible halocaust (!). Gentlemen, there has never been a Jewish Halocaust. The concentration camps had neither gas rooms nor places to burn dead bodies. All those items were added later by US forces to prove (!) that US was right to attack Nazis. It is the same situation today. Look at Iraq

Krupp was Jewish? I think you need to look at that one again. :rolleyes:

Hell, if Wilson hadn't got us involved in WWI, then Germany probably would have won. So? That means there would be no German collapse, no Nazi party, no holocaust...

And no poll...

It was inevitable we'd enter the war sooner or later. I'd have prefer sooner, as Hitiler would've been more powerful had we not enter the war. Japan would also raise the Rising Sun over Canberra, and they'd have probably marched on Dehli, too.

The Churchill one, though I'll confess I've never heard the worker one but it certainly makes sense and was probably said.
Uhm, I found it on a website, but another quote...which may just be a rephrasing of that one...which my history teacher mentioned was "The night after Pearl Harbor was the first night I slept soundly" (as he knew America would enter the war and victory was assured for the allies...

Just google for Churchill quotes and I'm sure you'll find that quote.

Hell, if Wilson hadn't got us involved in WWI, then Germany probably would have won. So? That means there would be no German collapse, no Nazi party, no holocaust...

And no poll...

Not really, the Entente would've probably have won WWI without the US, what would've been different was the post-war world. Germany would continue on a similar pattern, but France and Great Britain would be wrecked. Many of their loans were cancelled out due to US intervention in Europe, without this the two countries would have huge outstanding debts to the US (Which they did anyway, but much larger). It could very well cripple both countries in the post-war world.

I think that the Us should do what they did. It was really more the Russians fight and the British. And as souch the Japanese can be seen as a never no minder... the us navy could have kept them more or less out of the game for a very long time if the army and marines had to be directet to europe

ps. most of the chinese fled into the country side so only about 200,000 were killed.. as far as i remember..

what makes on think though.. the Japanese attacked pearl so that the Us wouldnt sent naval support in to stop them taking the oil fields(they also took out the british air basess with around 430 planes).. but the oil was for their army... so what was their plan that they needed oil for ?

I'm not sure where you get your Chinese quote from, but current estimates for the Sino-Japanese War (Which started in 1937) have Chinese casualties at near 30 million, and this is not counting the Civil War.

Yes, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to cripple the Pacific Fleet and stop it's intervention in the Far East for their lightning offensive. I think the attack on airbases your reffering to was the attack on the United States Far East Air Force on Luzon, which, although aware of Pearl Harbor mysteriously was not mobilized and was destroyed on the ground. The British suffered a few days later when there main naval presence, the HMS Prince of Wales and the HMS Repulse were both sunk off Malaya by Japanese bombers.

Without oil their industry and military grind to a halt, oil was used in power production, and most critically transportation. The Army required a huge amount of oil to continue the campaign in China, the Navy requires an equally large amount of oil to keep the fleet at sea and the garrisons of the Empire supplied (they require oil and so do the ships that supply them, not all though). Without oil the Army is largely immobile, the Imperial garrisons are defenseless becuase the fleet cannot leave port (which it rarely did after 1943 becuase of fuel constraints), and industrial transportation in the Homeland is ineffective.

Not really, the Entente would've probably have won WWI without the US, what would've been different was the post-war world. Germany would continue on a similar pattern, but France and Great Britain would be wrecked. Many of their loans were cancelled out due to US intervention in Europe, without this the two countries would have huge outstanding debts to the US (Which they did anyway, but much larger). It could very well cripple both countries in the post-war world.

Alas, we shall never know....

Well, don't let Von Witzleben see this post! He'll tell you the Czechs were planning a pre-emptive strike to take over all of Germany! No doubt the Poles were in on it as well.....


the previous sentences are pure sarcasm.........


haha... i bet there is some one crazy enough to say that. they probably will at the danes, the dutch, and belgians before they finish that 'idea' too.