NationStates Jolt Archive

Would he be like Bush?

That's like saying if Jesus attacked the Romans in Jerusalem, would he be considered Bush.

At any rate, no he wouldn't, since Germany was clearly a threat to the United States itself, with designs on world domination, while Iraq was a backward nation that couldn't even project power to it's neighbours.

Very poor argument. Gandhi wouldn't have and didn't want violence against the British either. You didn't answer the question.

He didn't attack the US on Dec 7, 1941 but we went to war the next day with Germany.
Iraq and Saddam were not a big threat to world peace? HMMM, I think that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel and Iran might differ with you on that.

Perhaps, I don't know. It all depends on public reaction...but by 1938, maybe not. Supposing he did it in '34 or '35...then, I suppose it's possible. I mean, we look back now at the psycho Hitler was, but if he had been stopped before he really showed his true colors, then we might have thought that Roosevelt was unjust.

Germany wasn't a clear threat to anyone until 1938, really, before he was making 'rational' - in the eyes of the world - demands, although I think Czechoslovakia got us a bit nervous. Poland was the final straw.

Hindsight is quite uberl337 :)

At any rate, no he wouldn't, since Germany was clearly a threat to the United States itself, with designs on world domination, while Iraq was a backward nation that couldn't even project power to it's neighbours.

In this case, he is right. Germany was openly attacking certain nations, and then saying "OK, but that was the last one, I swear." In this case, Iraq hadn't actually attacked, say, Israel or something, so it is a bad analogy.

Would he be like Bush?

Czechoslovakia and some other small country (I forget which) had already been invaded. Attacking the Nazis would be completely justifiable in 1938.

Austria had also been invaded, I believe, although I'm not 100 percent sure on that.

Thread closed. This was not to be posted here. Hitler had done less to other countries in 1938 than Saddam had done when the US took him out. Hitler might have even killed less of his people than Saddam had.

But think of this: I doubt if WWII would be considered quite the brave, courageous, pristine war that it is now if Roosevelt had pre-emptively attacked Germany during the Depression. America was very isolationist at the time, and the public outcry would have been loud and long. By waiting to respond to an actual threat, America solidified itself into a single unified Nation. It cemented important alliances. Also, wouldn't America and Russia have been enemies much sooner if America had moved aggressively into Europe like that? Russia would also not have incurred such drastic casualties as it did, makinging it a greater threat to the US.

What would have happened for Bush if he had continued to exclusively pursue Afghanistan and Osama like he should have? Only the most extreme of conscientious objectors would have been against him, and there would have been more time to solidify a more global alliance against terrorism. Worldwide sentiment would be much more with America, helping with the worldwide cooperation required to collect good intelligence, and also boosting trade.

Bush blew it big time, and it has irrevokably compromised America's security and prosperity. I do not see how anyone can excuse this. If there were no other issues, this alone should make Bush ineligible for a 2nd term. The very strength he is trying to project is his greatest and most enduring failure. Shame on anyone who votes for him.

Austria's unification with Germany was mutual to any meaningfull extent and the annexation of the Sudetenland was in accordance with the will of the international community. I dont think either example is relevant to either Saddam's invasion of Kuwait or GW's invasion of Iraq.

Thread closed. This was not to be posted here. Hitler had done less to other countries in 1938 than Saddam had done when the US took him out. Hitler might have even killed less of his people than Saddam had.
Austria, the Czecks...

Thread closed. This was not to be posted here. Hitler had done less to other countries in 1938 than Saddam had done when the US took him out. Hitler might have even killed less of his people than Saddam had.

Oh, I wasn't aware that Saddam had the most powerful military in the world (Which Germany had in 1938.) I also wasn't aware that Saddam had annexed any territory into Iraq. Gosh, I guess I must be ignorant.

I guess Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Alsace-Lorraine region don't count.

Moron.

Fiirsty,before anything else ,Republican or Democrat,Roosevelt had an I.Q. higher than 0.5

Would he be like Bush?

He already is, in my opinion.

p.s.sorry about the fiirstly thing,got a new laptop,meant firstly!

Very poor argument. Gandhi wouldn't have and didn't want violence against the British either. You didn't answer the question.

Gandhi? How did we get to him, I was saying this is a horrid comparison to draw, it makes little sense.

He didn't attack the US on Dec 7, 1941 but we went to war the next day with Germany.

We went to war with Germany becuase they declared war on the US on December 10th (3 days later)

Iraq and Saddam were not a big threat to world peace? HMMM, I think that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel and Iran might differ with you on that.

At the time, no he wasn't, we had already stripped him of any ability to threaten his neighbours in 1991.

Sword and Shield that is a poor argument, as Germany wanted to avoid conflict with the United States as much as humanly possible. Hitler was actually upset that Japan pulled us into the war. Hitler had plans on vast expansion, but did not intend to strike out on the U.S., at least not until the rest of Europe and Asia were secure.
The question is, however, invalid. You're debating a dead man's policy. FDR never intended to get involved with WWII, so the question is, at least in my opinion, completely irrelevant.

I can see the point the author of this post is trying to make, but it doesn't really fit.

-Germany was getting ready to mobilise, and Iraq never did anything to the US
-Bush got into the presidency illegally, Roosevelt did not
-If Roosevelt decided to invade Germany, it would NOT have been to steal their resources

etc etc

Sword and Shield that is a poor argument, as Germany wanted to avoid conflict with the United States as much as humanly possible.

Actually, Hitler didn't care whether or not the US went to war. According to him, he believed the US was a "mongrel nation, too busy dancing to Negro music and catering to Jewish businesses to be a military power". He held no fear of the US, he thought they were far too soft to be of any effect to the war.

Hitler was actually upset that Japan pulled us into the war.

Actually, he was upset Japan had not given him warning of the Pearl Harbor strike, and he was not bound to follow them into any war. They had not declared war on the Soviet Union, and didn't do so even after he declared war on the United States.

Hitler had plans on vast expansion, but did not intend to strike out on the U.S., at least not until the rest of Europe and Asia were secure.

He knew he had to take out the US, since he saw it as the center for the Jewish economic holding's, and he didn't think highly of the "Negro race" either.

The question is, however, invalid. You're debating a dead man's policy.

I think it's quite vital to the question.

FDR never intended to get involved with WWII, so the question is, at least in my opinion, completely irrelevant.

He most certainly did intend for us to go to war if necessary (some would even say he wanted to go to war anyway). And he certainly did not shy from Isolationism, just Interventionism.

At any rate, no he wouldn't, since Germany was clearly a threat to the United States itself, with designs on world domination, while Iraq was a backward nation that couldn't even project power to it's neighbours.
How about Kuwait? And Saudi Arabia?

And he was actually quite joyed, since it finally brought Japan on his side for sure, he claimed "We are now unstoppable, we have an ally beside us who has not been vanquished in over 10,000 years", which is strangely similar to Churchill who said "At that moment (when America entered the war), I knew we had won after all."

in addition to outright militray invasions and occupations prior to 1938, he also has attacked civilians in spain during the civil war there (picasso made a famous painting about it). in order to make this thread work you need to push the date back to before 1936, maybe even 35.

How about Kuwait? And Saudi Arabia?

After 1991, he could not threaten them, as I've already stated.

bump

in addition to outright militray invasions and occupations prior to 1938, he also has attacked civilians in spain during the civil war there (picasso made a famous painting about it). in order to make this thread work you need to push the date back to before 1936, maybe even 35.

Picasso's painting is of Guernica, a Republican town destroyed from the air by the Condor Legion, a Luftwaffe force sent by the Nazi's to aid Franco's Nationalist cause. And I think Free Soviets is right, for this comparison to make any sense, your going to have to go back to 1933, since aside from Mein Kampf, he had made his intentions towards his neighbor's clear with his attempted annexation of Austria in '34.

He already is, in my opinion.

Hmph hates lincoln; hates roosevelt. Loves lee.

Well now.....

Sword and Shield that is a poor argument, as Germany wanted to avoid conflict with the United States as much as humanly possible. Hitler was actually upset that Japan pulled us into the war. Hitler had plans on vast expansion, but did not intend to strike out on the U.S., at least not until the rest of Europe and Asia were secure.
The question is, however, invalid. You're debating a dead man's policy. FDR never intended to get involved with WWII, so the question is, at least in my opinion, completely irrelevant.

Well yes he was made because he wanted to wait till he finished in Europe before going after us.

Actually FDR wanted in WWII bad. He just could not find a reason to move the isolationist mindset of the time. Japan served one up nice and proper....

Hmph hates lincoln; hates roosevelt. Loves lee.

Well now.....

Dude, I don't hate anybody. Hate their policies, yes. But hate? Hate's too strong a word. I don't like to hate. As for Lee...what's wrong with liking him? ;)

Well... in my opinion if FDR attacked Germany in 1938 he would've been like Bush. However, Bush (Sr) would've been like FDR if he didn't immediately help out Kuwait after Iraq invaded.

You've got to be kidding, even if Japan didn't bomb the US we should have gone into Germany, Hitler was taking over Europe soon part of Asia, than the world, if we didnt step up there might be no one but prodestants and Germans with blonde hair, blue eyes, he was threat to America, Bush attacked a completely defenceless country either out of fun, for oil, or to avenge his rich daddy.

ok, thread so moronic...blood has started to gush out of my nose....*slaps head repeatedly*....so, so stupid.....

Perhaps, I don't know. It all depends on public reaction...but by 1938, maybe not. Supposing he did it in '34 or '35...then, I suppose it's possible. I mean, we look back now at the psycho Hitler was, but if he had been stopped before he really showed his true colors, then we might have thought that Roosevelt was unjust.

Germany wasn't a clear threat to anyone until 1938, really, before he was making 'rational' - in the eyes of the world - demands, although I think Czechoslovakia got us a bit nervous. Poland was the final straw.

Hindsight is quite uberl337 :)
but Saddam was in power for 30 odd years with US support
germany got austria thru a vote to unite the two nations and claimed the sudetenland and Czechoslovakia as it was german(ic) speaking had been close ties in the past.

in addition to outright militray invasions and occupations prior to 1938, he also has attacked civilians in spain during the civil war there (picasso made a famous painting about it). in order to make this thread work you need to push the date back to before 1936, maybe even 35.
the spanish civil war was a free for all no nation bar the ussr interferred? but they did send volunteers america britain canada germany italy.

the spanish civil war was a free for all no nation bar the ussr interferred? but they did send volunteers america britain canada germany italy.

America, Britain, France, all of those countries sent no military aid to the Republican cause, some of their citizens willingly volunteered for the International Brigades, but their equipment had to be provided by the Republicans, as well as their training. Many US businesses, particularly those involved in the explosives business, sent trade almost exclusively to the Nationalist cuase.

The Soviet Union sent planes (the staple of the Republican Air Force was the 1-16 "Mosca"), tanks, and equipment, but nothing on the size that Italy and Germany sent to Nationalist Spain. Italy sent a large numbers of pilots (who would later survive mostly on this experience, since many of their planes were outdated against the British Desert Air Force, and later USAAF forces), actual soldiers, submarines, tanks, rifles, artillery, and the supevisors to train the Nationalists, Germany sent a similar force, through the Condor Legion the Luftwaffe practiced the basis of close support, dive bombing, and terror bombing. The Nationalist cause was far better aided by the world, with the Republicans only having the Soviets backing them (Who were requesting payment for goods rendered, unlike the Italians and Germans), and popular opinion in some countries.

The closest any country came to aiding Republican Spain besides the Soviet Union, was when France opened the Pyrenees to the arms trade, but following much debate in the Chamber of Deputies, the Pyrenees were again closed a few months later.

-roosevelt wanted to go into ww2 but after ww1 america was isolationist
roosevelt saw the threat but public open was the issue (large german and italians populations).
remember the league of nations (woodrow wilsons brainchild) us congres(?) wouldnt support it.
-roosevelt had the lend lease policy with britain and russia.
-russia and germany had a ten year millitary alliance america couldnt afford to attack germany, geographical it would be impossible.
-the us millitary was a shambles the pearl harbour attack awakened the us millitary a convienent landing craft hadnt been invented,americas high seas fleets were antiquated ww1 battleships etc there would be no staging point for an attack: britain was under chamberlin (appease appease appease peace in our time etc) and france was under the influence of the ww1 hero petin
-it broke lees heart when virginia seceded he was offered the us army but he couldnt fight against his state or her people.Lincolns family were rebels

Oh, I wasn't aware that Saddam had the most powerful military in the world (Which Germany had in 1938.) I also wasn't aware that Saddam had annexed any territory into Iraq. Gosh, I guess I must be ignorant.

I guess Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Alsace-Lorraine region don't count.

Moron.

You're the one sitting at your computer discussing politics with a bunch of wacko's over the internet. Who is truly a moron? You!

Kind of hard to prove the power of an Army not in combat. Try Japan moron!

America, Britain, France, all of those countries sent no military aid to the Republican cause, some of their citizens willingly volunteered for the International Brigades, but their equipment had to be provided by the Republicans, as well as their training. Many US businesses, particularly those involved in the explosives business, sent trade almost exclusively to the Nationalist cuase.

The Soviet Union sent planes (the staple of the Republican Air Force was the 1-16 "Mosca"), tanks, and equipment, but nothing on the size that Italy and Germany sent to Nationalist Spain. Italy sent a large numbers of pilots (who would later survive mostly on this experience, since many of their planes were outdated against the British Desert Air Force, and later USAAF forces), actual soldiers, submarines, tanks, rifles, artillery, and the supevisors to train the Nationalists, Germany sent a similar force, through the Condor Legion the Luftwaffe practiced the basis of close support, dive bombing, and terror bombing. The Nationalist cause was far better aided by the world, with the Republicans only having the Soviets backing them (Who were requesting payment for goods rendered, unlike the Italians and Germans), and popular opinion in some countries.

The closest any country came to aiding Republican Spain besides the Soviet Union, was when France opened the Pyrenees to the arms trade, but following much debate in the Chamber of Deputies, the Pyrenees were again closed a few months later.
absolutly true its what i was getting at but the bombings could be described as an early version of "shock and owe" hitler did constantly offer help to get the british out of gibraltar but franco always said when it happens we will do it.

-russia and germany had a ten year millitary alliance america couldnt afford to attack germany, geographical it would be impossible.

It was not a military alliance (nor did it stipulate a ten year limit), I believe you are referring to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which was only a Non-Aggression Pact, in other words, the Soviets would not attack Germany, Germany would not attack the Soviets, and it also set up the Spheres of Influence each country had. The Soviets got the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia), the Karelian Isthmus in Finland, Besserabia and northern Bukovina, and Eastern Poland. Germany got Western Poland, and the rest of the Balkans (Bulgaria was a precarious middle position, as was Romania). And this treaty was signed in August 1939, this is set in 1938.

-the us millitary was a shambles the pearl harbour attack

It was in shambles before the Pearl Harbor attack.

a convienent landing craft hadnt been invented

The Higgin's Landing Craft? The "Eureka" model had been around since 1935, which was essentially the Higgin's without the ramp, which was added at the request of the Marine Corps, in 1940.

americas high seas fleets were antiquated ww1 battleships

The South Dakota and North Carolina classes of Battleships are considered some of the finest battleships of the time, and the best of their respective tonnages and limitations. They were completely modern, the antiquated WWI battleships were the ones that went to the bottom at Pearl Harbor, but even then, all of them except the Arizona and the Utah (The latter becuase it was ancient even by WWI standards) were raised, repaired, and returned to service. The US Navy was the only service prepared for war.

etc there would be no staging point for an attack

If we had backed Daladier at Munich, there would be France.

britain was under chamberlin (appease appease appease peace in our time etc)

If war had breaken out, Britain was somewhat bound to aid France.

and france was under the influence of the ww1 hero petin

Petain only became influential again after the disaster of the Gamelin Plan, and the breaking of the Weygand Line. At this time (1938), France was under Edourd Daladier, who did not trust Chamberlains appeasement policy. France was particularly attached to Czechoslovakia (They were like brothers, France being the bigger brother), and it was the only true democracy in central Europe. Daladier knew however, that without British support, he could not stand up to Hitler, so the French gov't contacted the US Government, and asked if they would back France if they stood up to Hitler at Munich, the US refused, so Daladier, who was very angry with Munich, was forced to go home, becuase all of his allies had abandoned him.

"shock and owe"

In fact, there was a book published in 1996, it detailed the ideas of Blitzkreig warfare, and made particular mention of it's complete changing of warfare, including the terrible consequences it had for civilian populations. The book's title, Shock and Awe

hitler did constantly offer help to get the british out of gibraltar but franco always said when it happens we will do it.

Franco knew his country was in no shape for a war, he needed most of his Army to just keep the guerilla's still fighting under control, and the country's infrastructure and industry were heavily damaged. "Operation Felix" (The Operation to take Gibraltar coordinating with Spain), was rejected on a solid basis.

Which Bush?

Bush Senior attacked an Iraq that was showing a lot of hitlerian potential. The world learned its lesson about standing by idly while aggressive nations absorb their weaker neighbors. A good comparison can be made between this scenario and the what if scenario that is the subject of this thread. I think the political backlash that would have resulted from such a move (assuming it were successful) would have been worse for Roosevelt than it was for Bush Sr. After all, Hitler did have some legal basis for his aquisitons, however thin. The German and Italian populations in the United States was and is much larger than the Iraqi-American population, so Roosevelt had much more resistance at home to overcome than did Bush Sr. There is also the fact that in 1938, Germany almost certainly would have whipped our butts had we tried to invade, probably as badly as we beat the Iraqis in 1991. Certainly public opinion would have been as outraged at a costly victory (in terms of American lives lost) as they would have been about an outright defeat. Then there's the fool-me-once/fool-me-twice aspect. Bush had the benefit of history on his side. The world learned lessons from Hitler about stopping aggression early, and were, for the most part, behind us. Roosevelt in 1938 was dealing with a world that hadn't yet learned these lessons.

Bush Jr. is another ball of wax entirely. Our legal grounds for going to war (WMD) have since proven false. We're prempting possible future aggression, rather than responding to clearly aggressive acts. We've also lost many more soldiers during the second conflict than in the first.

So, in response to the original post, Roosevelt would have fared somewhat better than Bush Jr., and probaly much worse than Bush Sr., in terms of public opinion resulting from their actions.