NationStates Jolt Archive

NO FLAMING. PERIOD.

I'll clarify things, though. The question was too vague, I'll admit, so I'll re-phrase it: Was America's participation in World War II morally just?

No. Nazi Germany had no right to do what it did.

No war is morally just...

History is written by the victors of wars. US, Russia, and Brittain won the war.

It was just.

No. Nazi Germany had no right to do what it did.

I meant the war itself, not Nazi Germany's pre-war militariam/imperialism.

no it was utterly immoral for the germans, italians, and japanese to start ww2

War is war. If killing people is unjust then indeed WW2 was unjust. The cause of the war wasn't necessarily unjust. The u.s. joining due to attack wasn't unjust. But the war, in and of itself was. What a stupid question.

What a stupid question.

Excuse me, but I thought I said no flaming. Next time, please read before you post, thanks.

yes it was immoral it was done only for expantionism

War is war. If killing people is unjust then indeed WW2 was unjust. The cause of the war wasn't necessarily unjust. The u.s. joining due to attack wasn't unjust. But the war, in and of itself was.

I agree. As far as the US joining, the US declared war on Japan for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Following that, it was Germany who declared war on the US.

I don't think the war just, period. It was certainly none of our business. The last war we fought that was really any of our business was, in my opinion, the War for Independence.

NO FLAMING. PERIOD.

I'll clarify things, though. The question was too vague, I'll admit, so I'll re-phrase it: Was America's participation in World War II morally just?

Yes, the participation of Canada, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Bolivia, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama in World War II was justified. What was that you were saying about vagueness?

It's easy to dismiss this as a "stupid question" but I think there is a case to answer here. The United States' involvement in the war was wholly justified.

Firstly, the attack on Pearl Habour in 1941 reflected the fact that the conflict was not just based in Europe but was to be fought on a worldwide scale. Secondly, it was not conducive for the United States if her interests were being conquered and occupied in Europe.

But I think perhaps the question should not ask about whether the US should have declared war in Europe but whether she had planned to get involved even before Pearl Harbour.

Yes, the participation of Canada, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Bolivia, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama in World War II was justified. What was that you were saying about vagueness?

I meant, the question "Was World War II morally just?" was vague, because it doesn't specify whether I mean Germany's actions, Britain and France's involvement, the U.S.'s involvement, whatever, was justified. That's why I said it was a vague question.

no it was utterly immoral for the germans, italians, and japanese to start ww2

Versailles started the war. Also that friendly lovable group of profiteers and speculators helped a great deal.


Check the dates on the quotes, well before the "Holocaust" is alleged to have started in 1941.


no it was utterly immoral for the germans, italians, and japanese to start ww2



"Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year but later..." (The Jewish Emil Ludwig, Les Annales, June, 1934)




"Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy. Have no mercy on women, children, or the aged! Kill every German -- wipe them out!" (Llya Ehrenburg, Glaser, p. 111).


"The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end." (The Jewish newspaper, Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939)


"Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism of today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child." (Jewish professor A. Kulischer, October, 1937)


"Whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur's men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: 'The real reason that boy went to his death, was because Hitler's anti-Semitic movement succeeded in Germany.'" (The American Hebrew, July 24, 1942).


"Step by step, I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleague, condemned Nazi Aggression and Terror. I believe now that Hitler and the German People did not want war. But we, {England}, declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of Balance of Power, and we were encouraged by the 'Americans'{Jews} around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler's pleading, not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany: instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Empire. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentless pursued now, only under a different label." (Ashamed and Humiliated The British Attorney General, Sir Hartle Shawcross, said in a speech at Stourbridge, March 16/84 (AP)).


"Our fight against Germany must be carried to the limit of what is possible. Israel has been attacked. Let us, therefore, defend Israel! Against the awakened Germany, we put an awakened Israel. And the world will defend us." (Jewish author Pierre Creange in his book Epitres aux Juifs, 1938)


"Judea declares War on Germany." (Daily Express, March 24, 1934)


"Germany must be turned into a waste land, as happened there during the 30-year War." (Das Morgenthau-Tagebuch, The Morgenthau Dairy, p. 11).


"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany..." (Valadimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934)





World War II was a Zionist plot to make way for the foundation of the Jewish State in Palestine." (Joseph Burg, an anti-Zionist Jew).

"Even if we Jews are not bodily with you in the trenches, we are nevertheless morally with you. This is OUR WAR, and you are fighting it for us." (Les Nouvelles Litteraires, February 10, 1940).

"The day when the Jew was first admitted to civil rights, the Christian state was in danger...the entrance of the Jew into {White) society marked the destruction of the State, meaning by State, the Christian State." (Benard Lazare, Antisemitism: Its History and Causes, P. 162).

"Israel won the war [WW I]; we made it; we thrived on it; we profited from it. It was our supreme revenge on Christianity." (The Jewish Ambassador from Austria to London, Count Mensdorf, 1918).

"...the [Jewish] underground will strike targets that will make Americans gasp." [Victor Vancier, Village Voice Statements of New York City Jewish Defense League Commander, April, 1986)

"You've seen every single race besmirched, but you never saw an unfavorable image of a kike because the Jews are ever watchful for that. They never allowed it to be shown on the screen!" (Marlon Brando, Playboy, Jan. 1979)

"The Christians are always singing about the blood. Let us give them enough of it! Let us cut their throats and drag them over the altar! And let them drown in their own blood! I dream of the day when the last priest is strangled on the guts of the last preacher." (Jewish Chairman of the American Communist Party, Gus Hall).

"The strongest supporters of Judaism cannot deny that Judaism is anti-Christian." (Jewish World, March 15, 1924)

"A Jew remains a Jew even though he changes his religion; a Christian which would adopt the Jewish religion would not become a Jew, because the quality of a Jew is not in the religion but in the race. A Free thinker and ATHEIST always remains a Jew." (Jewish World, London december 14, 1922)

On March 15th, 1923, the Jewish World asserted: "Fundamentally Judaism is Anti-Christian." (Waters Flowing Eastward, p. 108)

"The Jew is not satisfied with de-Christianizing, he Judiazizes, he destroys the Catholic or Protestant faith, he provokes indifference but he imposes his idea of the world of morals and of life upon those whose faith he ruins. He works at his age old task, the annilation of the religion of Christ." (Benard Lazare, L'Antisemitism, p. 350; Rabbi Benamozegh, quoted in J. Creagh Scott's Hidden Government, page 58).

"The Communist soul is the soul of Judaism. Hence it follows that, just as in the Russian revolution the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism, so also in the triumph of fascism will triumph Judaism." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 143-144).

"Freemasonry, Judaism, and Occultism, whose alliance and reciprocal interpretation no longer require demonstration." (L=E9on de Poncins, The Secret Powers behind Revolution, (1929)).

"The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism." (Statement by Rabbi Felix Mendlesohn, Chicago Sentinel, October 8, 1942).

"Zionism is Judaism, and Judaism is unthinkable without Zionism." (Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History, Vol. X, "Zionists").

"We Jews regard our race as superior to all humanity, and look forward, not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them." (Goldwin Smith, Jewish Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, October, 1981)

"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own." (You Gentiles, by Jewish Author Maurice Samuels, p. 155).

"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate).

"We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not...You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world." (Chaim Weizmann, Published in "Judische Rundschau," No. 4, 1920)

"Already the pitch has been reached in Great Britain where it is considered bigoted or reactionary to do other than praise the Jews for their industry and ability. Few papers will risk any attack on the Jews, however well-founded, for fear of appearing even distantly anti- Semitic." (This is more than true in America where it is dangerous to mention any through derogatory to the Jews, and in New York it has been made a crime). (Propaganda in the Next War, Sidney Robertson, p. 92; War! War! War!, Cincinnatus, p, 192).




Here are a few more for good measure:

"The Christians are always singing about the blood. Let us give them enough of it! Let us cut their throats and drag them over the altar! And let them drown in their own blood! I dream of the day when the last priest is strangled on the guts of the last preacher." (Jewish Chairman of the American Communist Party, Gus Hall).

"Wars are the Jews harvest, for with them we wipe out the Christians and get control of their gold. We have already killed 100-million of them, and the end is not yet." (Chief Rabbi in France, in 1859, Rabbi Reichorn).

"Israel won the war [WW I]; we made it; we thrived on it; we profited from it. It was our supreme revenge on Christianity." (The Jewish Ambassador from Austria to London, Count Mensdorf, 1918).

I meant, the question "Was World War II morally just?" was vague, because it doesn't specify whether I mean Germany's actions, Britain and France's involvement, the U.S.'s involvement, whatever, was justified. That's why I said it was a vague question.

It still doesn't specify the USA.

As an afterthought, I'm actually surprised that Americans today are knowlingly revising their history. I was under the impression that the USA's history of exporting "liberal" principles (democracy, limited government, constitutionalism etc) and challenging fascism and communism was a source of pride, not a subject of criticism.

It still doesn't specify the USA.

I edited my first post.

Seems like you need a Brit opinion on this one, since we were involved from the start.

Chamberlain tried every tactic up his sleeve to avoid war, a policy now known as 'appeasement', but Hitler took so many liberties with Europe that an ultimatum became necessary.

After WW1 the Treaty of Versailles was, on reflection, unnessessarily harsh on Germany, it had territories taken away, it's army drastically reduced (or even abolished, I'm a bit hazy on that). Germany as a consequence went into an awful recession which kneecapped every government that tried to stem it, both liberal and conservative (if those terms can be accurately used). The only way out was the National Socialist party - the Nazi's, who chose to actively disobey the Treaty of Versailles, remove Germany from the League of Nations, in an attempt to recover what had been lost. At first, they rebuilt the army, then retook the Rhineland and Studetenland. The League of Nations ignored this, as there was widespread sympathy toward Germany, apart from France, who understandably wanted to enforce the treaty of Versailles to the letter.

So far, so good. But:

Hitler kept on increasing the military, navy and luftwaffe, using them to invade first the German-speaking area of Czechoslovakia (as it was then), enforce a bullied union with Austria, then organised a full-blown invasion of Czechoslovakia - as it was allied to Russia and seen as a threat. (Hitler lulled Stalin into a false sense of security with the Pact of Steel in 1938, although his main intention was total invasion of Russia, as he despised Communism).

The invasion of Czechoslovakia could not be ignored, as it could not be excused by claims of German nationalism. The League of Nations learned that Hitler planned to invade Poland next, and forbade him from doing so. In September 1939 the troops marched in, and Britain, the Commonwealth and France declared war.

The war was morally just (possibly the only war ever that could be described as morally just) because, in the meantime, Hitler was busy subjugating ethnic minorities, conquered peoples and Jews, which eventually culminated in the 'Final Solution', posited in 1942. A total of 11 million Jews and minorities were murdered in the Nazi death camps. Hitler, needless to say, was a fanatic, a racist, a nationalist and utterly insane. He preached an internationally unacceptable ideology, which the German population adopted remarkably quickly due to his charisma, propoganda and the fear of the Gestapo.

The war was morally just because it was with the intention of liberating lands and peoples that were unrightfully invaded. And that was fulfilled. Although in the postwar legal wranglings, certain mistakes were made, for example many think that Germany should not have been partitioned into East and West, and that the Nuremburg trials were unfairly biased. I don't really have an opinion on these though...

This is just from memory, I studied A-Level History, which was just basically studying both wars in mind-numbing detail. If I were a little more diligent I could provide historians' accounts, but I think I've already written too much, and I can't really remember, it was over two years ago anyway...

pardon me , but for all of thsi rhetoic , of course ww2 was not moraly justified. it was caused by nazi germany and it's allies. The role of the allies, in stopping the nazi conquest of europe, freeing the peope ( not just jews, all of them) from concentration camps, stopping japan, and saving the world from nazism was justified. at least thats my small opinion.

(Hitler lulled Stalin into a false sense of security with the Pact of Steel in 1938, although his main intention was total invasion of Russia, as he despised Communism).
...


The pact of steel was between Hitler and Mussolini and it should have set off alarm bells in Russia... You mean the non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

It still doesn't specify the USA.I edited my first post.

It still doesn't specify the USA.

pardon me , but for all of thsi rhetoic , of course ww2 was not moraly justified. it was caused by nazi germany and it's allies. The role of the allies, in stopping the nazi conquest of europe, freeing the peope ( not just jews, all of them) from concentration camps, stopping japan, and saving the world from nazism was justified. at least thats my small opinion.


You just stated "was not morally justified" and then at the end "was justified"... Well, which is it?

Versailles started the war. Also that friendly lovable group of profiteers and speculators helped a great deal.

blah blah blah.....

you are sad.

so those things meant it was moral for germany to invade poland?

I think it was unjust and hypocritical because, if our intention was truly to liberate lands and free conquered people, why not go after the USSR, as well? Besides, we're not the world's policeman. If other countries want to stick their noses into it and get a bunch of their people killed, nobody's stopping them.

It still doesn't specify the USA.

Yes, it does. Please read it again.

NO FLAMING. PERIOD.

I'll clarify things, though. The question was too vague, I'll admit, so I'll re-phrase it: Was America's participation in World War II morally just?

See? It's right there.

Yes, it does. Please read it again.

Was America's participation in World War II morally just?

It still doesn't specify the USA.

Last I checked America was a continent (or a label for two continents), whereas the USA was one of several countries that occupy that landmass.

It still doesn't specify the USA.

Last I checked America was a continent (or a label for two continents), whereas the USA was one of several countries that occupy that landmass.

Please don't be a smart-ass. You know very well I meant the USA.

Please don't be a smart-ass. You know very well I meant the USA.

No, I know only what you said. The fact that you didn't specify the USA when I listed all other American countries involved in WWII further underlined that impression. You have since made it clear, however.

Okay. Sorry for that remark. :(

No war is unjust because the attackers are never responsible for starting wars. It’s people trying to defend and protect themselves and others that start wars. People could always just put down their arms and surrender to somebody else’s will any time somebody comes along saying that they’re the new boss in town. But most people understandably don't want to do that so they fight back. What's so unjust about protecting yourself?

I think it was unjust and hypocritical because, if our intention was truly to liberate lands and free conquered people, why not go after the USSR, as well? Besides, we're not the world's policeman. If other countries want to stick their noses into it and get a bunch of their people killed, nobody's stopping them.
because the ussr dint bomb pearl harbor?
because the ussr dint invade the rest of europe?

because the ussr dint bomb pearl harbor?
because the ussr dint invade the rest of europe?

Stalin was at least as brutal as Hitler. So, why didn't we finish off the Soviets when we had the chance, like Patton wanted?

I think it was unjust and hypocritical because, if our intention was truly to liberate lands and free conquered people, why not go after the USSR, as well? Besides, we're not the world's policeman. If other countries want to stick their noses into it and get a bunch of their people killed, nobody's stopping them.

Sorry for being a pedant here, but the United States of America has - to use your terminology - "stuck its nose in" in conflicts across the world and has made no attempts to lessen its role as the world's policeman. The wars in the Gulf and Iraq, the situations in Israel, Northern Ireland, Vietnam, Cuba and the Monroe and Truman doctrines both demonstrate an inherent desire in US political culture to get involved in conflicts and disputes. The USA might not accept its role as a "policeman", but it's certainly adopted a proactive role in foreign affairs, whether you like it or not.

because the ussr dint bomb pearl harbor?
because the ussr dint invade the rest of europe?


The USSR waged war on Finland "Winter War" (1938-1940), and became the only nation expelled from the League of Nations. They also conqured Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia before the war started.

Also let us note after they "Liberated" Eastern Europe, they established the iron curtain and basically settled in as occupiers.

The UK, USA, and France should have kept pushing east after we hit the Elbe.

Sorry for being a pedant here, but the United States of America has - to use your terminology - "stuck its nose in" in conflicts across the world and has made no attempts to lessen its role as the world's policeman. The wars in the Gulf and Iraq, the situations in Israel, Northern Ireland, Vietnam, Cuba and the Monroe and Truman doctrines both demonstrate an inherent desire in US political culture to get involved in conflicts and disputes. The USA might not accept its role as a "policeman", but it's certainly adopted a proactive role in foreign affairs, whether you like it or not.

I know. That's what I'm saying, though, that I'm sick of Presidents trying to make us play globocop, and everybody else expecting us to.

The USSR waged war on Finland "Winter War" (1938-1940), and became the only nation expelled from the League of Nations. They also conqured Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia before the war started.

Also let us note after they "Liberated" Eastern Europe, they established the iron curtain and basically settled in as occupiers.

The UK, USA, and France should have kept pushing east after we hit the Elbe.

Personally, I don't think we should have become involved at all. But since we did, I agree that we should kept pushing east and wiped out the Red Army, since we were already involved, anyway, and it was the perfect opportunity to finish them off once and for all.

The pact of steel was between Hitler and Mussolini and it should have set off alarm bells in Russia... You mean the non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Yes, you're absolutely right, excuse me. (My memory is going down the toilet these days...)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1936 was a concordat between Germany and Russia that conveniently gave Germany some time to organise an invasion of Russia whilst it still had a war on only one front.

The Nazis got to St Petersburg via Kiev where they were held off by a year long siege. Then they had to return, inadvertantly opening up another front, which in the end was the Nazis' undoing.

The Pact of Steel was an alliance between Berlin and Rome. Where, incidentally, Pope Pious XII signed a concordat with the Nazis so that the Catholic Chruch would turn a blind eye to the holocaust. Mmm, very moral, that... Mussolini's Fascismo ideals (the true origin of fascism) were parallel, but not entirely identical to Hitlers. There were certain differences. Mussolini considered anyone who delcared that they were an Italian citizen as part of the country. His was a nationalist ideology as opposed to a racial one.

When Italy was invaded by the Allies just after D-Day (is that right?), the fickle Italian population turned agianst Mussolini, and shot him as he fled from Milan to Como. (Gotta love these Italians!) So the Nazis occupied Italy as well, stretching their resources even further, and eventually spelling inevitable defeat.

Anyway, the war was morally justified. How can anyone act as an apologist for Hitler?

In my humble opinion, the Vatican should have been indicted as well, for effectively condoning the holocaust. (But I have my own issues with the Vatican, for another thread perhaps).

Anyway, the war was morally justified. How can anyone act as an apologist for Hitler?

Opposing the war does not make one an apologist for Hitler, just like opposing our current war does make the opposer an apologist for Saddam.

It's still not clear to me what you mean by morally justified - do you mean:

1) "Was the US entry into WWII morally justified?"

which seems to be a no-brainer, considering we waited until we were actually attacked, and Germany declared war on the US first.

or do you mean

2} "Was every action the US took in WWII morally justified?"

I'm not thinking so much of the a-bomb - I'm willing to give Truman the benefit of the doubt on this one, looking at things as he saw them - but the firebombing of cities and bombing raids that devastated civilians.

It's still not clear to me what you mean by morally justified - do you mean:

1) "Was the US entry into WWII morally justified?"

which seems to be a no-brainer, considering we waited until we were actually attacked, and Germany declared war on the US first.

or do you mean

2} "Was every action the US took in WWII morally justified?"

I'm not thinking so much of the a-bomb - I'm willing to give Truman the benefit of the doubt on this one, looking at things as he saw them - but the firebombing of cities and bombing raids that devastated civilians.

In my opinion, our worst action during that war was Operation Keelhaul. (Damn you, Eisenhower! :upyours: )

The USSR waged war on Finland "Winter War" (1938-1940), and became the only nation expelled from the League of Nations. They also conqured Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia before the war started.
And the Soviet union also invaded Poland.

We were absolutely justified in going to war. We didn't like the Japan's exanpionistic goals so we cut off trade. And we know they were expansionistic because they attacked mainland Asia, so in retaliation they came and tried to destroy the ENTIRE Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. They were hoping that by destroying Pearl Harbor they would cripple the US Fleet in the Pacific. And it was well known that Germany was on the side of the Japanese and that the English had been embroiled in a terrible war with them for over 2 years now. England is our biggest and oldest ally, and the French were already taken over- would we just keep sitting back and watching as Europe fell? Had it not been for the entrance of the US and the Soviet Union in the middle of the war, Europe would have fallen to Germany.

And the treaty of Versailles did not start the war. What happened was that Chamberlain did appease to Hitler's wishes after Europe and America were in a great world wide depression.

Also- I'm pretty sure that the Soviet Union didn't conquer those territories in Easter Europe. The Germans gave those to the Russions in the Malatov-Ribbentrop pact.

Yes, you're absolutely right, excuse me. (My memory is going down the toilet these days...)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1936 was a concordat between Germany and Russia that conveniently gave Germany some time to organise an invasion of Russia whilst it still had a war on only one front.



It was in 1939 :D

Had it been in 1936 as you state, the war wasn't even going then. :D

It was shortly before the invasion and subsequent partion of Poland between Germany and the USSR.


Signed August 23rd 1939.

Personally, I don't think we should have become involved at all.
That's alright for you to say, but us Brits were in immediate danger of invasion, we had to act.

But since we did, I agree that we should kept pushing east and wiped out the Red Army, since we were already involved, anyway, and it was the perfect opportunity to finish them off once and for all.
The League of Nations turned a blind eye to Stalin 'cos he was an ally, and helped no end to bring the Nazis down. Without his help it would've been almost impossible. Also, Russia sacrificed more troops than the other nations combined. To forge ahead and engage the Red Army would've been physically impossible, the Allies were exhautsed and heavily indebted from war. Also morally unacceptable, since they gave so much help to the Allied cause. Plus, in 1945, Stalin's behaviour was still acceptable. His purges didn't come to light until the late 40's and 50's.

It's all very well saying "We should'a finished awf dem Godless Commies", but in actual fact it was impossible from every viewpoint.

When Italy was invaded by the Allies just after D-Day (is that right?), the fickle Italian population turned agianst Mussolini, and shot him as he fled from Milan to Como. (Gotta love these Italians!) So the Nazis occupied Italy as well, stretching their resources even further, and eventually spelling inevitable defeat.

).


There had been German soldiers in Italy well before the September 1943 invasion by the allied forces in southern Italy.

Mussolini was shot less than a week before Hitler committed suicide, Mussolini was killed in late April 1945 by a band of communist terrorist Partisans.

And the Soviet union also invaded Poland.

Correct.

There had been German soldiers in Italy well before the September 1943 invasion by the allied forces in southern Italy.

Mussolini was shot less than a week before Hitler committed suicide, Mussolini was killed in late April 1945 by a band of communist terrorist Partisans.

He was killed April 28, two days before Hitler committed suicide.

I know. That's what I'm saying, though, that I'm sick of Presidents trying to make us play globocop, and everybody else expecting us to.

The USA is the only remaining true superpower, it doesn't have a choice, it can't deny its duty of leadership - regardless of what we might think of it.

That's alright for you to say, but us Brits were in immediate danger of invasion, we had to act.


The League of Nations turned a blind eye to Stalin 'cos he was an ally, and helped no end to bring the Nazis down. Without his help it would've been almost impossible. Also, Russia sacrificed more troops than the other nations combined. To forge ahead and engage the Red Army would've been physically impossible, the Allies were exhautsed and heavily indebted from war. Also morally unacceptable, since they gave so much help to the Allied cause. Plus, in 1945, Stalin's behaviour was still acceptable. His purges didn't come to light until the late 40's and 50's.

It's all very well saying "We should'a finished awf dem Godless Commies", but in actual fact it was impossible from every viewpoint.


But you must remember, the USA homeland was untouched by the war, the USSR was ravaged. Had we pushed ahead, they would have crumbled. The US army was tired and worn out from the war. But the Soviet armies were at the breaking point, they lost over 200,000 soldiers to take just Berlin. They would have fallen before the might of the Western Forces. German officers captured by English and Americans, often would say, "You will see, soon you realize the Soviets are your real enemiy."

He was killed April 28, two days before Hitler committed suicide.

And a big factor in Hitler deciding to have his body burnt after his death was because he heard what happened to Mussolini's body.

The USA is the only remaining true superpower, it doesn't have a choice, it can't deny its duty of leadership - regardless of what we might think of it.
They don't have a "duty" cause other s expect them to. They have a "duty" because they want it and think others want it to.

And a big factor in Hitler deciding to have his body burnt after his death was because he heard what happened to Mussolini's body.

What did happen to Mussolini's body?

They would have fallen before the might of the Western Forces.
:D Funny guy. :D

What did happen to Mussolini's body?
He was hung by his anckels after he was shot and paraded around naked like a trophy.

They don't have a "duty" cause other s expect them to. They have a "duty" because they want it and think others want it to.

Alas, that's the USA for you, we can't live with it, we can't live without it.

What did happen to Mussolini's body?
He was posthumously hanged from a lamppost in Milan's Piazza della Repubblica for all to pelt rotten veg at, like medieval stocks.

He was posthumously hanged from a lamppost in Milan's Piazza della Repubblica for all to pelt rotten veg at, like medieval stocks.
Ahhh those were the days. I wish stuff like that was more commonplace again.

But you must remember, the USA homeland was untouched by the war, the USSR was ravaged. Had we pushed ahead, they would have crumbled. The US army was tired and worn out from the war. But the Soviet armies were at the breaking point, they lost over 200,000 soldiers to take just Berlin. They would have fallen before the might of the Western Forces. German officers captured by English and Americans, often would say, "You will see, soon you realize the Soviets are your real enemiy."
But the general opinion at the time was that Russia was an ally, and it would be therefore morally unjustifiable to invade Russia. And a German officer would say that.

In any case, we didn't invade Russia, so any whys and wherefores are now just conjecture.

Ahhh those were the days. I wish stuff like that was more commonplace again.
Yeah, Bush and Blair, side by side.
Take that! *pelts tomato*

What did happen to Mussolini's body?



They dragged him through the streets on Milan, hung him by his feet from the roof over a gasoline station / repair shop, and then spit on him, fired pistols at him, and some say there was gential mutilation, but the spitting is known for sure.

http://members.aol.com/Custermen85/ILDUCE/Mussolini.htm

Then there was a struggle between neo-fascists and communists over his body for a few years, with the fascists running around with his body trying to hide it. Finally he was buried and now has an honor guard of Neo-fascists.

And a German officer would say that.


.

And the German officer would be right. :D

Yeah, Bush and Blair, side by side.
Take that! *pelts tomato*
*Stands next to Getin and starts tossing eggs at Bush*

Yeah, Bush and Blair, side by side.
Take that! *pelts tomato*

I actually think Tony Blair's shown he's got balls... I'm not a Labour-voter (not that I think that matters) and I'm certainly not his biggest fan, but I don't think he deserves to hang like Mussolini.

I actually think Tony Blair's shown he's got balls... I'm not a Labour-voter (not that I think that matters) and I'm certainly not his biggest fan, but I don't think he deserves to hang like Mussolini.
Yes, you're right. At least Blair is intelligent (former lawyer), which is more than one can say for Bush.

But Blair has successfully alientated the British populace and the rest of the Labour party. My dad, a Labour voter for 25 years, has now sworn he'll never vote Labour again, because everything they promised in '97 has either been left by the wayside, or actively doubled-back on. In his words, Blair lied to the public.

Also, no-one likes to see a PM acting as a lap-dog for the US. Pre-Bush, the US was humorously tolerated in the UK, but with such an obviously reprehensible president, Blair's actions are anathema to the UK's citizens.

Yes, you're right. At least Blair is intelligent (former lawyer), which is more than one can say for Bush.

But Blair has successfully alientated the British populace and the rest of the Labour party. My dad, a Labour voter for 25 years, has now sworn he'll never vote Labour again, because everything they promised in '97 has either been left by the wayside, or actively doubled-back on. In his words, Blair lied to the public.

Also, no-one likes to see a PM acting as a lap-dog for the US. Pre-Bush, the US was humorously tolerated in the UK, but with such an obviously reprehensible president, Blair's actions are anathema to the UK's citizens.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm less inclined to agree. Although I accept that Blair has certainly lost favour with the public, he has gained admiration from many for his persistence: he agreed to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 despite unionist uncertainties, continued the development of a social market consensus and has applied pressure for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Traditional Labour voters won't like him because of his ending of the party's adherence to the principles of "socialist democracy". As far as I'm concerned, it's high time somebody put an end to corporatism once and for all.

NO FLAMING. PERIOD.

I'll clarify things, though. The question was too vague, I'll admit, so I'll re-phrase it: Was America's participation in World War II morally just?
Of course it was. The US was attacked, and it had every right to retaliate.

He was hung by his anckels after he was shot and paraded around naked like a trophy.

:eek:

Yes, you're absolutely right, excuse me. (My memory is going down the toilet these days...)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1936 was a concordat between Germany and Russia that conveniently gave Germany some time to organise an invasion of Russia whilst it still had a war on only one front.

It was signed in August, 1939.

The Nazis got to St Petersburg via Kiev where they were held off by a year long siege. Then they had to return, inadvertantly opening up another front, which in the end was the Nazis' undoing.

Kiev and St.Petersburg are on two seperate ends of the front, do you mean they got to Volgograd (Stalingrad, Tsaristyn) via Kiev, becuase they were both the responsibilty of Army Group South, though Rostov really lead to Stalingrad. Leningrad (St. Petersburg, Petrograd) was the responsibility of Army Group North. And the Siege of Leningrad was 3 years long, it didn't end until the spring of 1944.

When Italy was invaded by the Allies just after D-Day (is that right?), the fickle Italian population turned agianst Mussolini, and shot him as he fled from Milan to Como. (Gotta love these Italians!) So the Nazis occupied Italy as well, stretching their resources even further, and eventually spelling inevitable defeat.

The Allies invaded mainland Italy in 1943, and after the first few successes, the Italian King kicked Mussolini out of his position and they made peace overtures to the Allies. Italy surrendered to the Allies and joined them, but in the North, areas where German troops were present, it could not join the rest of Italy, and the Italian Socialist Republic, with Mussolini at it's head, was established. Essentially it was a German puppet, since German soldiers made up most of it's frontline Army, and it only kept power at Germany's consent. As for D-Day (Which I assume to mean Overlord), the city of Rome fell right before Overlord opened.

Seems like you need a Brit opinion on this one, since we were involved from the start.

Chamberlain tried every tactic up his sleeve to avoid war, a policy now known as 'appeasement', but Hitler took so many liberties with Europe that an ultimatum became necessary.

After WW1 the Treaty of Versailles was, on reflection, unnessessarily harsh on Germany, it had territories taken away, it's army drastically reduced (or even abolished, I'm a bit hazy on that).

It limited their Army to 100,000 men, with no tanks or heavy artillery, and no airplanes, and they were allowed no capital ships. It was not really as harsh as it's been made out to be on the economic side, not much harsher then the Treaty of Versailles (yes, there were others) that Germany made France sign in 1871. What really ticked off Germany was the fact that their Army had not actually been forced into Germany or shattered (it would have been, but people like the Nazi's refused to believe this), so the popular "back-stabbing" myth sprang up. They also lost a lot of land they considered Reich territory (Alsace Lorraine, and what hit even harder, some parts of East Prussia and then the chunk that went to Poland).

Germany as a consequence went into an awful recession which kneecapped every government that tried to stem it, both liberal and conservative (if those terms can be accurately used). The only way out was the National Socialist party - the Nazi's, who chose to actively disobey the Treaty of Versailles, remove Germany from the League of Nations, in an attempt to recover what had been lost. At first, they rebuilt the army, then retook the Rhineland and Studetenland. The League of Nations ignored this, as there was widespread sympathy toward Germany, apart from France, who understandably wanted to enforce the treaty of Versailles to the letter.

The Awful Recession is related to Versailles, but it was due mostly to the French who marched into the Rhineland when Weimar pleaded that it could not meet the reperation payments for that year. This shattered their fragile economy and sent inflation skyrocketing, but by the late 20's Weimar actually had stablised inflation and the economy was booming (in relation to what it had been), it was the Great Depression that hit in 1929 that shattered the ecnomy once again. And they didn't really take back the Sudetenland, it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before 1918, they were "protecting" the German speaking people there from the Czech Majority.

It limited their Army to 100,000 men, with no tanks or heavy artillery, and no airplanes, and they were allowed no capital ships. It was not really as harsh as it's been made out to be on the economic side, not much harsher then the Treaty of Versailles (yes, there were others) that Germany made France sign in 1871. What really ticked off Germany was the fact that their Army had not actually been forced into Germany or shattered (it would have been, but people like the Nazi's refused to believe this), so the popular "back-stabbing" myth sprang up. They also lost a lot of land they considered Reich territory (Alsace Lorraine, and what hit even harder, some parts of East Prussia and then the chunk that went to Poland).
Not to mention that they had to take the entire blame for the war. Not beeing allowed to develop modern weaponery, like airplanes and tanks etc.., losing all their colonies. And having to pay reperations of 900 billion goldmarks.

Not to mention that they had to take the entire blame for the war. Not beeing allowed to develop modern weaponery, like airplanes and tanks etc.., losing all their colonies. And having to pay reperations of 900 billion goldmarks.

I mentioned the reperations and weaponry, what I left out were the colonies and war blame (which they really should have taken).

war blame (which they really should have taken).
No. They shouldn't. Thats just victors talk.

No. They shouldn't. Thats just victors talk.

You guys are talking about right after WWI, right? If so, then I agree with Von Witzleben. Germany did not start World War I. One man did.

No. They shouldn't. Thats just victors talk.

It was Germany that engaged Britain in a pointless Naval Arms Race, it was Germany that gave Austria-Hungary a blank cheque concerning how to deal with Serbia. It was Germany that advised Austria-Hungary how to deal with Serbia (going from a quick fait accompli, to a massive World War), Germany who advised when to send the ultimatum to Serbia (while the French President and Prime Minister were in transit from Russia to France, so the Entente could not act quickly). It was the German diplomats abroad who labored hard to make sure the rest of the world saw it as a "local" problem that Austria would deal with, and putoff giving the matter over to the Hague Conference or mediation by someone like Britain (which had worked in past years) and finally, it was Germany who invaded Belgium, France, and Russia when none of these countries had made moves towards war with Germany. Everyone shares the blame in a war starting, but Germany shares a much greater burden than the rest of Europe.

You guys are talking about right after WWI, right? If so, then I agree with Von Witzleben. Germany did not start World War I. One man did.

Gavrilo Princip? He gave them a catalyst, but he did not start the First World War. There was no reason why this matter should be any more widespread than anything before it in the Balkans had. Austria could have marched straight into Serbia immediately and no one would have done anything, Russia had not helped Bulgaria when it was taken apart during the Balkan Wars, even though it was a Slav nation, so Slavic brotherhood did not mean much. It was the time in between the Ultimatum and Princip's murderof Franz Ferdinand that allowed the slow moving reactionary powers (like Russia) to make moves, and Serbia to call for help.

It was Germany that engaged Britain in a pointless Naval Arms Race, it was Germany that gave Austria-Hungary a blank cheque concerning how to deal with Serbia. It was Germany that advised Austria-Hungary how to deal with Serbia (going from a quick fait accompli, to a massive World War), Germany who advised when to send the ultimatum to Serbia (while the French President and Prime Minister were in transit from Russia to France, so the Entente could not act quickly). It was the German diplomats abroad who labored hard to make sure the rest of the world saw it as a "local" problem that Austria would deal with, and putoff giving the matter over to the Hague Conference or mediation by someone like Britain (which had worked in past years) and finally, it was Germany who invaded Belgium, France, and Russia when none of these countries had made moves towards war with Germany. Everyone shares the blame in a war starting, but Germany shares a much greater burden than the rest of Europe.
Sounds like a classic rogue state. Kaiser Wilhelm went a little loony, and tried to conquer Europe. He very well would have if the US didn't join (albeit extremely late).

Gavrilo Princip?

Oh, thank you! I always forget his name! So, you're a World War I history buff and a World War II history buff? :cool:

Oh, thank you! I always forget his name! So, you're a World War I history buff and a World War II history buff? :cool:

Heh, basically American Civil War on up, with emphasis on 1905-1949.

Heh, basically American Civil War on up, with emphasis on 1905-1949.

Cool! Myself, I specialize in the Vietnam War. :cool:

Cool! Myself, I specialize in the Vietnam War. :cool:

Cool, I haven't studied the Vietnam War, well, in depth at least.

Cool, I haven't studied the Vietnam War, well, in depth at least.

Want me to recommend some good sources?

Want me to recommend some good sources?

If you know of any that would give a grand view of the entire war that would at least get someone started in studies, I would be in your debt.

You guys are talking about right after WWI, right? If so, then I agree with Von Witzleben. Germany did not start World War I. One man did.
He was just the last drop sort of speak. The history that led up to WW1 is long and complex. The colonial system kept the tensions out of Europe for 40 years. Once there was no land left to divide the tensions between the major powers returned to Europe. And Germany has it's share of blame in the war. But certainly not to the extend as SaS wants to put it. With France, Britain and Russia beeing loving peacefull fluffybunnies and Germany beeing the big bad wolf.

He was just the last drop sort of speak. The history that led up to WW1 is long and complex. The colonial system kept the tensions out of Europe for 40 years. Once there was no land left to divide the tensions between the major powers returned to Europe. And Germany has it's share of blame in the war. But certainly not to the extend as SaS wants to put it. With France, Britain and Russia beeing loving peacefull fluffybunnies and Germany beeing the big bad wolf.

In 1914 at least, it was.

In 1914 at least, it was.
Conflicts like this don't start just overnight. And therefor you can't just put the blame on a single nation.

Gavrilo Princip? He gave them a catalyst, but he did not start the First World War. There was no reason why this matter should be any more widespread than anything before it in the Balkans had. Austria could have marched straight into Serbia immediately and no one would have done anything, Russia had not helped Bulgaria when it was taken apart during the Balkan Wars, even though it was a Slav nation, so Slavic brotherhood did not mean much. It was the time in between the Ultimatum and Princip's murderof Franz Ferdinand that allowed the slow moving reactionary powers (like Russia) to make moves, and Serbia to call for help.

Wasn't the ultimatum issued after the murder?

Also had Austria moved quickly, world opinion would have still been with it.

But they hesitated and the world had largely settled back down when Austria swept into Serbia.

Wasn't the ultimatum issued after the murder?

Nope, the Ultimatum was issued in late July (July 23rd, and it had to be answered yb July 25th), the murder was in late June (June 28th).

Also had Austria moved quickly, world opinion would have still been with it.

But they hesitated and the world had largely settled back down when Austria swept into Serbia.

Yes, the fait accompli that Germany and Austria were hoping they could get, but Austria's bumbling and both wanting to catch the Entente off balance (they did not want to do it while the French leaders were in Petrograd, that would lead to an even quicker reaction speed) made it too late for that to be possible.

If you know of any that would give a grand view of the entire war that would at least get someone started in studies, I would be in your debt.

With pleasure. Here we go:

Background to Betrayal: The Tragedy of Vietnam (by Hilaire du Berrier)

Our Vietnam Nightmare (by Marguerite Higgins)

Buddha's Child: My Fight to Save Vietnam (by Nguyen Cao Ky)

How We Lost the Vietnam War (by Nguyen Cao Ky)

We Were Soldiers Once...and Young (by Harold Moore and Joseph Galloway)

In Their Defense: U.S. Soldiers in the Vietnam War (by Dr. Pham Kim Vinh)

A Soldier Reports (by William Westmoreland)

Losers are Pirates: A Close Look at the PBS Series, 'Vietnam: A Television History' (by James Banerian)

Wings of the Eagle (by W.T. Grant)

Congressional Record, March 6, 14, and 16, 1985

National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (by Antony Sutton)

Deliver Us From Evil (by Dr. Thomas Dooley)

Newsweek magazine May 15, 1967

Time magazine December 15, 1967

Reader's Digest November 1968

Television's Vietnam (two-hour video released in 1984 and '85 by Accuracy in Media)

The Hanoi Commitment (by Jim Mulligan)

In Love and War (by James Stockdale)

The Ravens (by Christopher Robbins)

The Truth about Vietnam (article by Robert Welch)

No Substitute For Victory (video)

Kiss the Boys Good-bye (I don't remember the author)

Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent (I don't remember the author)

Kissinger on the Couch (by Phyllis Schlafley)

RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask (by Gary Allan)

Nam (by Gregory Louis Mattson and Leo J. Daugherty)

The Vantage Point (by Lyndon Johnson)

Vietnam: A Dragon Embattled (by Joseph Buttinger)

Vietnam: A Political History (by Buttinger)

Vietnam: The Dragon Defiant: A Short History of Vietnam (by Buttinger)

Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War

The Pentagon Papers

Dien Bien Phu (by Vo Nguyen Giap)

The Battle of Dienbienphu (by Jules Roy)

The Shadows of Power (by James Perloff)

The Crime of William Calley (article by Robert Welch)

People's War, People's Army (by Vo Nguyen Giap)

Big Victory, Big Task (by Vo Nguyen Giap)

Our Endless War (by Tran Van Don)

Reflections on the Vietnam War (by Cao Van Vien and Dong Van Khuyen)

In the Jaws of History (by Bui Diem)

In Retrospect (by Robert McNamara)

Counsel to the President: A Memoir (by Clark Clifford)

Lost Victory: A Firsthand Account of America's Sixteen-Year Involvement in Vietnam (by William Colby)

From Trust to Tragedy (by Frederick Nolting)

Obbligato (by William Sullivan)

No Peace, No Honor: The Paris Peace Talks that Sold Out South Vietnam (I don't remember the author)

The Past Has Another Pattern (by George Ball)

Lightning Joe: An Autobiography (by J. Lawton Collins)

The Limits of Intervention (by Townsend Hoopes)

In the Midst of Wars (by Edward Lansdale)

Swords and Plowshares (by Maxwell Taylor)

Diffusion of Power (by W.W. Rostow)

White House Years (by Henry Kissinger)

Years of Upheaval (by Henry Kissinger)

My War With the CIA (by Norodom Sihanouk)

The Last Confucian (by Dennis Warner)

The Last of the Mandarins: Diem of Vietnam (by Anthony Bouscaren)

The Best and the Brightest (don't remember the author)

Westward, Ha! (don't remember the author)

And finally, here are three books that, although fictitious, are helpful:

Perestroika Sunset (by Alan Stang)

The Ugly American (don't rememebr the author)

The Quiet American (don't remember the author)

bump

Conflicts like this don't start just overnight. And therefor you can't just put the blame on a single nation.

I didn't blame it on a single nation, I just said Germany held a more proportianate amount of blame than any Entente powers.

And thank you for the list Roach-Busters, I think I've read one or two (We Were Soldiers Once.......and Young, and Dien Bien Phu), and I'll search for the others on my next trip to the local bookstore.

In 1914 at least, it was.
heh and you claim to be a history buff. why dont you try to be less biased.
one man started ww1. period.

NO FLAMING. PERIOD.

I'll clarify things, though. The question was too vague, I'll admit, so I'll re-phrase it: Was America's participation in World War II morally just?
Yes, it was.

I didn't blame it on a single nation, I just said Germany held a more proportianate amount of blame than any Entente powers.

And thank you for the list Roach-Busters, I think I've read one or two (We Were Soldiers Once.......and Young, and Dien Bien Phu), and I'll search for the others on my next trip to the local bookstore.

Are you sure you read Dien Bien Phu? It was published many decades ago, and is quite rare. Most if not many of the books I listed are out of print and/or very rare (but many of them can be found at a low price at used-book stores, barnesandnoble.com's used and out of print section, or amazon.com).

Are you sure you read Dien Bien Phu? It was published many decades ago, and is quite rare. Most if not many of the books I listed are out of print and/or very rare (but many of them can be found at a low price at used-book stores, barnesandnoble.com's used and out of print section, or amazon.com).

I'm fairly certain of it, it was some time ago. It was an account of the Franco-Vietnamese War, with a large portion dedicated to the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. I'm somewhat fuzzy on who wrote it, but it may have been a French officer, but that was also the time I was reading De Gualle's book, so I may be mistaken on the French part.

Of course our involvement in the second world war was morally just!

Germany was attempting to exterminate the Jewish minority in europe, and if we did not step in england would have been lost, provided Hitler did not attack the soviet union.

We have time and time again not stepped in to prevent genocides, believing that state soveriegnty allows nations to do whatever they want.

We have time and time again supported or ignored genocidal regimes for our own purposes, forgetting that intervention might just possibly improve our rickety moral standing in the world.

The war against Japan was by far the most just war the U.S. has ever fought. The japs conducted an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, unless you think cutting off their oil supply was provoking the attack...which it kinda was. But the Japanese did invade manchuria and half of the pacific before we cut the oil to them. Our fight was as moral as theirs was unmoral, and the japs fight was savage and insane. So i will get off my box here and leave u with a sniper shooting an out of site jap running through a field of grass on the hills of Saipan :sniper:

Of course our involvement in the second world war was morally just!

Germany was attempting to exterminate the Jewish minority in europe, and if we did not step in england would have been lost, provided Hitler did not attack the soviet union.

We have time and time again not stepped in to prevent genocides, believing that state soveriegnty allows nations to do whatever they want.

We have time and time again supported or ignored genocidal regimes for our own purposes, forgetting that intervention might just possibly improve our rickety moral standing in the world.

If the purpose really was to stop genocide, why didn't we take out the USSR while we were at it? Those bastards killed way more people than the Nazis did.

The war against Japan was by far the most just war the U.S. has ever fought.

Moreso then the War of Independence?

The japs conducted an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, unless you think cutting off their oil supply was provoking the attack...which it kinda was.

They had invaded mainland China and slaughtered millions, right in the face of the US (Pre-1945, the US held a special relationship with China, it was the only country the US actually cared to protest about), and then took advantage of the Fall of France and tookover large parts of French Indochina. This obviously showed the Japanese had interests on the colonies and protectorates in the Pacific, and more ambitiotious designs on more than China.

The USSR waged war on Finland "Winter War" (1938-1940), and became the only nation expelled from the League of Nations. They also conqured Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia before the war started.

Also let us note after they "Liberated" Eastern Europe, they established the iron curtain and basically settled in as occupiers.

The UK, USA, and France should have kept pushing east after we hit the Elbe.

You seem to forget that 1) Stalin had charmed Truman into believing he was a 'nice guy', and without the support of the U.S., I don't think that the commonwealth and France could have fought Russia. 2) The war had been going on for 6 years now, and everyone just wanted it to stop. And, 3) I don't know exactly how many years it had been since a foreign army conquered Russia, but I know it was a substancially large amount. We're talking Russia here! It's the largest country on earth!

You seem to forget that 1) Stalin had charmed Truman into believing he was a 'nice guy', and without the support of the U.S., I don't think that the commonwealth and France could have fought Russia. 2) The war had been going on for 6 years now, and everyone just wanted it to stop. And, 3) I don't know exactly how many years it had been since a foreign army conquered Russia, but I know it was a substancially large amount. We're talking Russia here! It's the largest country on earth!

The Red Army was almost in shambles, though. There was never a better time to finish them off. We should have taken advantage of that.

You seem to forget that 1) Stalin had charmed Truman into believing he was a 'nice guy', and without the support of the U.S., I don't think that the commonwealth and France could have fought Russia. 2) The war had been going on for 6 years now, and everyone just wanted it to stop. And, 3) I don't know exactly how many years it had been since a foreign army conquered Russia, but I know it was a substancially large amount. We're talking Russia here! It's the largest country on earth!

You've got a point about Stalin charming his way, but after he refused to allow Poland to organize itself the way it wanted, and it became clear he wasn't letting go his iron grip on Eastern Europe, Truman wasn't holding any illusion.

As for the war, Britain would definitely not have participated in any new war (the way it had before, as a major ground component of the Allied Armies), they had run out of manpower long before 1945, to replace losses they were cannibilizing other units, and it could simply not continue at a war pace. France had large manpower reserves, but it also had most of it's industry destroyed, it's infrastructure was damaged, and it was still unstable. The only country that could take on the Soviet Union was the United States, which had absolutely huge manpower reserves, and it's economy had just reached wartime capacity (whether or not this was the peak is debatable).

However I do not think the US populace, which had been at war for only 4 years, would have supported a war against the Soviet Union, unless it was the Soviets who attacked. Both country's populaces loved each other, Americans were confused by Churchill's remarks about the Iron Curtain. If the US attacked, popular support for war would disappear, so it is unlikely the Soviet Union would fall to the US, since no one would support the war.

What the West could have done however was be aggressive against Stalin, threaten him to let Eastern Europe go. Stalin was no fool, he liked to talk about and admire his great Red Army, but he knew the truth. Russia had no manpower reserves left, towards the beginning of 1945 they were recruiting people form conquered lands for the Red Army, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. The Country simply could not stand another full scale war, and especially one against the United States, which made up almost half (49% IIRC) of the entire world's GDP. With a show of force, I'm fairly certain he would have caved.

In a hypothetical war however, discounting popular support, the US wins. The Red Air Force is huge, but poorly trained and using equipment and planes far inferior to the RAF and USAAF. They might be able to contest the skies or a few months, but after that, they can only try to defend themselves. At sea there is no contest, the Soviets lose, their entire Navy is made up of ships lent to them by the US and Great Britain, and is a meager force compared to the Western Navies (respectively, the 3 largest in the world, US Navy, Royal Navy, and Royal Canadian Navy). The Ground is the only place they can contest the West, their Army is undoubtedly much larger than the Western forces in Europe. They have superior armour and numbers, but that is about it. The West has far better Combined Arms ability, they can call in artillery support and air support and have it show up immediately and on target, the Soviets have no such ability. They lack an engineering corps that can match the US (By far the most lavishly equipped and trained Engineering Corps in the world), and even the mobility of Western Forces (The US Army was the first in the world to be fully motorized). The introduction of the M46 gives the West at least some ability to challenge Soviet armour, which after the first few months cannot move in the daylight, since the West will undoubtedly control the Air.

Whoa, you've done alot of thinking on the subject, but at least it makes sense, unlike alot of teh BS in these forums. The russian winter must be taken into account, as well as the sheer manpower the Russians possessed. Also, dont discount America's early, but powerful nuclear ability.

Whoa, you've done alot of thinking on the subject, but at least it makes sense, unlike alot of teh BS in these forums. The russian winter must be taken into account, as well as the sheer manpower the Russians possessed. Also, dont discount America's early, but powerful nuclear ability.

Stalin correctly guessed the US didn't have many nukes in it's arsenal (something Japan did not guess after 2 bombings in 3 days). He also absurdly calculated that the Soviet Union could survive a US nuclear attack, by comparing it to the German invasion.

As for the Russian winter, unlike the Germans, the US was able to fight in the winter, the Germans had gone in with no winter gear, and they were also not a motorized force like the US Army. The US had the industrial capacity to outfit it's force with winter gear, and it's Engineering Corps was the best and had the greatest abilities of any force of it's kind on the planet, containing nearly twice as much equipment as the standard of it's allies, Britain and the Commonwealth.

As for their manpower, they cannot replace losses with able troops, they have to take them from countries they had just conquered (who are not likely to be very loyal, given a choice between the USSR and a free country the US will undoubtedly give them), or call in veterans who are not already in the Army for medical reasons. So what they start with is what they are left with, since they cannot draw much from their industrial population since they need all of it to just keep up production which cannot hope to match the US.

The war against Japan was by far the most just war the U.S. has ever fought. The japs conducted an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, unless you think cutting off their oil supply was provoking the attack...which it kinda was. But the Japanese did invade manchuria and half of the pacific before we cut the oil to them. Our fight was as moral as theirs was unmoral, and the japs fight was savage and insane. So i will get off my box here and leave u with a sniper shooting an out of site jap running through a field of grass on the hills of Saipan :sniper:
Of course, the Germans and Italians declared war on us as soon as we declared war on Japan, so that part was a moral fight, too.

You seem to forget that 1) Stalin had charmed Truman into believing he was a 'nice guy', and without the support of the U.S., I don't think that the commonwealth and France could have fought Russia. 2) The war had been going on for 6 years now, and everyone just wanted it to stop. And, 3) I don't know exactly how many years it had been since a foreign army conquered Russia, but I know it was a substancially large amount. We're talking Russia here! It's the largest country on earth!
Exactly my point!

I didn't blame it on a single nation, I just said Germany held a more proportianate amount of blame than any Entente powers.
And thats where you are wrong. Just as when you claimed France trying to isolate Germany was nothing more then paranoia,

And thats where you are wrong. Just as when you claimed France trying to isolate Germany was nothing more then paranoia,

No, I never said France trying to isolate Germany was paranoia, I said France trying to destroy Germany by war was paranoia. If I remember correctly, you have yet to state proof in this thread supporting your position, other than Germany was not to blame, just as when I was explaining Germany's 1914 paranoia (over an alliance created becuase the two powers were afraid of an obviously aggressive Germany) you offered me nothing to suggest that France was actually trying to bring war on Germany. Read the German dispatches yourself, and the records of Austro-German meetings and the memoirs of those involved, Germany wanted war in 1914, becuase they were afraid if they delayed any longer Russia would be modernized and France ahead of them.

I don't think the war just, period. It was certainly none of our business. The last war we fought that was really any of our business was, in my opinion, the War for Independence.

Japan physically attacked our military and territory and Germany declared war upon us...it was very clearly...OUR business. Unless you're a Tolstoyan that believes in non-resistance to evil...and thats just impratical.

If the purpose really was to stop genocide, why didn't we take out the USSR while we were at it? Those bastards killed way more people than the Nazis did.

Do I need to state this again... Germany attacked the Soviet Union and killed 26 million of its citizens, overwhelmingly civilians, and devastated the equivlent of the US east of Chicago in Russia. Add that to six million Poles...and thats just Eastern Europe. Germany deserved what it got in that war, and yes I mean what the Soviet Union did to the eastern parts of Germany when the overran it.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: were here! join the region, 0000000000 DKAFSKTFF.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: were here! join the region, 0000000000 DKAFSKTFF.

That was perhaps the most unrelevant post I've ever seen in any thread, and I've argued over French history in a thread about a war between China and the US

No, I never said France trying to isolate Germany was paranoia, I said France trying to destroy Germany by war was paranoia. If I remember correctly, you have yet to state proof in this thread supporting your position, other than Germany was not to blame, just as when I was explaining Germany's 1914 paranoia (over an alliance created becuase the two powers were afraid of an obviously aggressive Germany) you offered me nothing to suggest that France was actually trying to bring war on Germany. Read the German dispatches yourself, and the records of Austro-German meetings and the memoirs of those involved, Germany wanted war in 1914, becuase they were afraid if they delayed any longer Russia would be modernized and France ahead of them.

Well as a matter of fact, every continental power was hoping for war in 1914, mainly they see the war as a means to settle the social problems they were facing, add to this a lot of rabid nationalism and you have nice barrel of powder. As to whom put it on fire? Well, France did play Germany the same trick they had been given in 1871 in making them being the one to declare the war.Being victorious in 1918, has made the allied forces the one to make the history and the german the sole responsible of the declaration of war. The truth is Germany wanted war because they did not accept the challenge of France and England, France wanted to take Germany place as a continental leader, England was afraid of Germany préeminance, Russia needed a foreign war to end the social contest and Austria wanted to get rid of panslavism, and that is only a few of the reason.

So, to conclude the treaty of Versaille was a shame, the blaming of the sole Germany was a shame, the pose of the victor as being drawn to war while working for peace a shame.

And the treaty of Versailles did not start the war. What happened was that Chamberlain did appease to Hitler's wishes after Europe and America were in a great world wide depression.

Also- I'm pretty sure that the Soviet Union didn't conquer those territories in Easter Europe. The Germans gave those to the Russions in the Malatov-Ribbentrop pact.

How can someone give you something that does not belong to them. more likely is allowed for "recognised spheres of influence"

NO FLAMING. PERIOD.

I'll clarify things, though. The question was too vague, I'll admit, so I'll re-phrase it: Was America's participation in World War II morally just?

The war?
yup.
America's participation? less, but yup.

Conflicts like this don't start just overnight. And therefor you can't just put the blame on a single nation.

Unfortunately in this case, you can. From the beginning of its inception until WWII. Just look at the historical figures. The Iron Chancellor, Kaiser Whilhelm and Hitler. All three were the protagonists for large conflicts that had serious repurcusions for decades.

A lot of countries feel that America's participation in WWII was reluctant. We spent years before finally becoming a part of it, and before that, millions of people suffered. We intervened, but not before England and Canada and Russia and the others who were fighting German aggression. It was clear-cut aggression, as opposed to much of the wars we either initiate or join eagerly, because they represent financial gain for the US. I don't know if our participation was all that much to be proud of, but better late than never. We joined the war late, and then proceeded to claim all of the credit for winning it.

Germany deserved what it got in that war, and yes I mean what the Soviet Union did to the eastern parts of Germany when the overran it.
then the whole soviet union deserves what happened in the koch&kube controlled areas.

How can someone give you something that does not belong to them. more likely is allowed for "recognised spheres of influence"
germany didnt "give" it to the soviets. they just agreed to not advance beyond a certain line and let the soviets conquer it. go and read about it, the soviet union *did* invade the baltic countrys and eastern poland.

Unfortunately in this case, you can. From the beginning of its inception until WWII. Just look at the historical figures. The Iron Chancellor, Kaiser Whilhelm and Hitler. All three were the protagonists for large conflicts that had serious repurcusions for decades.
No. Cause you are completely ignoring the actions of the Entente powers before and during 1914.

I don't think the war just, period. It was certainly none of our business. The last war we fought that was really any of our business was, in my opinion, the War for Independence.


Which was about the early Americans wanting freedom to go west and butcher and steal from the native americans for gold rather than wanting freedom from Britain which barely taxed tham at all.And then slavery really took off in case you want to talk about moral superiority. :headbang: