NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing seperates America from practically every other country that was involved in World War Two. This is I believe possibly the most significent thing which affects America's attitude to war when compared with the rest of the world. America did not have and significent fighting on its own soil. Unlike Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Poland, China etc America did not recieve any long periods of bombing campaigns to its mainland. Nor did it have forigen troops fighting or occupying any part of its territory. Hence forever the rest of the world (Europe in particular) have a view of war that the Americans frequently do not understand and often mistake for cowardace. Thus the American position in the world remains markedly different to everyone elses (One of the many reasons why September 11th has been overplayed as an international watershed in history as every other country is used to dealing with a war where civilian casulities are commonplace). What is everyone else's thoghts on this? How siginficent is the fact that America did not recieve any attack or fighting on its mainland during World War Two

When was the last time 3,000 people were killed in England? (sorry I'm making a random guess at your country) Not since WWII so I think if they had hit England France Italy Germany etc the entire world would have reacted in much the same way as it did on 9-11.

and thank God for oceans :D

Australia.

Incredibly important; as a result of the destruction following the war, the US controlled over 40% of the world's net industrial production and that helped power us through the prosperous years of the 1950's and the boom of the 1960's and led to the creation of our strong modern service economy.

One thing seperates America from practically every other country that was involved in World War Two. This is I believe possibly the most significent thing which affects America's attitude to war when compared with the rest of the world. America did not have and significent fighting on its own soil. Unlike Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Poland, China etc America did not recieve any long periods of bombing campaigns to its mainland. Nor did it have forigen troops fighting or occupying any part of its territory. Hence forever the rest of the world (Europe in particular) have a view of war that the Americans frequently do not understand and often mistake for cowardace. Thus the American position in the world remains markedly different to everyone elses (One of the many reasons why September 11th has been overplayed as an international watershed in history as every other country is used to dealing with a war where civilian casulities are commonplace). What is everyone else's thoghts on this? How siginficent is the fact that America did not recieve any attack or fighting on its mainland during World War Two
Yeah, we bombed them.
911 is significant because we never declared war on them or attacked them. They attacked us first without reason. See, England got owned in WWII because the declared war on Germany first. Same with the other nations.
*cough*Pearl Harbor*cough*

Northern Ireland didn't have fighting on its soil, yet it had over 3,000 people killed in a 30 year civil war. You don't see us wanting to go round invading random countries; we just get dragged around by Westminster.

Actually Japanese forces landed on US soil on the Alaskan Islands. And I think Pearl Harbor counts as a major Bombing Raid.

Australia.

:headbang: How did I forget to mention them? I should remember that being
a WWII buff and all. and Canada and New Zealand
(sorry about that)
Spain and Portugal didn't even fight. not to mention the Swiss.

Canada was part of England at the time and yes they did fight, in the British beach heads the D-Day armies for those beaches were made up of Canadians and British troops.

Northern Ireland didn't have fighting on its soil, yet it had over 3,000 people killed in a 30 year civil war. You don't see us wanting to go round invading random countries; we just get dragged around by Westminster.

That's self infilicted.
Any way 3,000 all at once? I don't know much about the Civil War in Ireland but even if 5,000 died over a 30 year period thats only 166 a year. (I know I know only bad word there is no only with human life but I'm comparing so give me a break) Anyway short of England there really isn't any country you could go after. At least Iraq was near Afghanastan. There was some evidnece to go to war and Bush just tuned out the rest. Moron. Why did we reelect him? I blame the South.

One thing seperates America from practically every other country that was involved in World War Two. This is I believe possibly the most significent thing which affects America's attitude to war when compared with the rest of the world. America did not have and significent fighting on its own soil. Unlike Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Poland, China etc America did not recieve any long periods of bombing campaigns to its mainland. Nor did it have forigen troops fighting or occupying any part of its territory.

"Practially every other country that was involved in World War Two (sic.)" apart from Nepal, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, South Africa, Canada, Tannu Tuva, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Liberia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bahawalpur and Mongolia here, yes?

Canada was part of England at the time


* points and laughs *

No, it wasn't. Don't be silly.

Part of the British Commonwealth, yes, part of England, no.

Canada was part of England at the time and yes they did fight, in the British beach heads the D-Day armies for those beaches were made up of Canadians and British troops.
I wrote it wrong. I know about Soward beach. Or was it Gold beach the Canadians took? I can't remeber but it was one of those.

When was the last time 3,000 people were killed in England? (sorry I'm making a random guess at your country) Not since WWII so I think if they had hit England France Italy Germany etc the entire world would have reacted in much the same way as it did on 9-11.

Britian has delt with Domestic terrorism and the IRA for many a year. Lockabie may have not been 3000 people but it was still siginifcent. Its just Britian is more used to this kind of war.

I wrote it wrong. I know about Soward beach. Or was it Gold beach the Canadians took? I can't remeber but it was one of those.

It was Juno Beach.

It was Juno Beach.
Damnit! I thought the British got that one...

"Practially every other country that was involved in World War Two (sic.)" apart from Nepal, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, South Africa, Canada, Tannu Tuva, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Liberia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bahawalpur and Mongolia here, yes?

Mongolia was involved. See Mancuhira etc. I cant see how specificly the others were significently involved. Did they supply troops to any of the thetres of combat. Were they themselves fought on?

Yeah, we bombed them.
911 is significant because we never declared war on them or attacked them. They attacked us first without reason. See, England got owned in WWII because the declared war on Germany first. Same with the other nations.
*cough*Pearl Harbor*cough*

Britian (Scotland and Wales were not neutral) and they were involved because they had agreed with Poland to attack Germany if Germany attacked Poland. Pearl Habour was a purely millitary target and was a battle that lasted a matter of hours. It was not a prolonged period of bombing that lasted several years. Nor was it a long period of partial or complete occupation of the nation.

Actually Japanese forces landed on US soil on the Alaskan Islands. And I think Pearl Harbor counts as a major Bombing Raid.

A raid. Not a campaign of bombing. Britian was dealing with bombing for over a period of years. America did not suffer a bombing campaign or an occupation, in short any of the devestaton of war found common place in the other countries.

Mongolia was involved. See Mancuhira etc. I cant see how specificly the others were significently involved.

They were all part of the Allies. You are claiming that you can't see how Canada, New Zealand and Australia were involved in WWII?


EDIT: you have just have shifted your position from being focused on countries 'involved' to countries 'significently (sic.) involved'. It has been noticed.

Did they supply troops to any of the thetres of combat.

For the most part, yes, they either supplied troops or materials for the theatres of combat, or made their home facilities available to other members of the Allies

Were they themselves fought on?

No. Why would I give a list of countries which had been fought on as counter-examples to your case concerning a country which (as far as its continental mainland goes) hadn't be fought on? That was my whole point.

Britian (Scotland and Wales were not neutral)

United Kingdom, I think you'll find: Northern Ireland was not neutral either.

A raid. Not a campaign of bombing.

However, the continental US did also undergo a sustained campaign of bombing too: it went on for at least six months and caused at least six casualties.

However, the continental US did also undergo a sustained campaign of bombing too: it went on for at least six months and caused at least one casualty.

The balloons! How could we forget those?!

However, the continental US did also undergo a sustained campaign of bombing too: it went on for at least six months and caused at least six casualties.
Can we really count bombs that were floated over on paper balloons?

Can we really count bombs that were floated over on paper balloons?

Given that they proved to be lethal weapons, why the hell not? Should we just chalk them up to the excesses of over-enthusiastic childrens' entertainers instead? Heck, if dropping bombs from wood and paper aeroplanes is to be counted, why not paper balloons?

Damnit! I thought the British got that one...
nope. The peaceful Canadians were the first to capture their beach. We also were assigned Sword beach, but that one wasn't as important. So what does this teach you? Don't piss us off, because our fighters are awesome!

Given that they proved to be lethal weapons, why the hell not? Should we just chalk them up to the excesses of over-enthusiastic childrens' entertainers instead? Heck, if dropping bombs from wood and paper aeroplanes is to be counted, why not paper balloons?
Yeah, but six cassualties isn't exactly total war.

nope. The peaceful Canadians were the first to capture their beach. We also were assigned Sword beach, but that one wasn't as important. So what does this teach you? Don't piss us off, because our fighters are awesome!
Mounties!

Can we really count bombs that were floated over on paper balloons?
The prinicipal counted mine when I was suspended, so I don't see why the Axis should be given a pass.

1. America did not have and significent fighting on its own soil. Unlike Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Poland, China etc 2. America did not recieve any long periods of bombing campaigns to its mainland. 3. Nor did it have forigen troops fighting or occupying any part of its territory.

So, to sum up what we have learned from the thread so far:

1. Yes, it did.
2. Yes, it did.
and
3. Yes, it did.

Yeah, but six cassualties isn't exactly total war.

Possibly, but that isn't the detail I'm arguing with: the continental USA underwent a sustained and lethal bombing campaign. It may not have been a highly effective, sustained and lethal bombing campaign, but it was a sustained and lethal bombing campaign nonetheless.

Anyhow, Germany was hardly a picnic prior to 1943, but it was only then that it entereed into a state of total war, so it seems that casualties alone are hardly criterion enough to determine the existence of the state.

Damnit! I thought the British got that one...
Canadians got Juno, the British got sword and gold and the Americans got Utah and Omaha and the operation at Point du Hoc. French guerilla fighters were also involved in one of the British landings but I can’t remember which.

The US and Europe learned two different “lessons” from World War II.

US- Appeasement is bad. (bullshit)
Europe- War is bad.

Also, Australia’ Northern coast was bombed and it faced a serious threat of Japanese invasion prior to the Battle of Coral Sea, just so all you Australia dismisers know.

Canadians got Juno, the British got sword and gold and the Americans got Utah and Omaha and the operation at Point du Hoc. French guerilla fighters were also involved in one of the British landings but I can’t remember which.

The US and Europe learned two different “lessons” from World War II.

US- Appeasement is bad. (bullshit)
Europe- War is bad.

Also, Australia’ Northern coast was bombed and it faced a serious threat of Japanese invasion prior to the Battle of Coral Sea, just so all you Australia dismisers know.
I would believe the Europeans, especially the British, also learned that appeasement is bad. But that's just my opinion.

also, the Japanese learned that nukes are bad. very bad.

Canadians got Juno, the British got sword and gold and the Americans got Utah and Omaha and the operation at Point du Hoc. French guerilla fighters were also involved in one of the British landings but I can’t remember which.

The US and Europe learned two different “lessons” from World War II.

US- Appeasement is bad. (bullshit)
Europe- War is bad.

Also, Australia’ Northern coast was bombed and it faced a serious threat of Japanese invasion prior to the Battle of Coral Sea, just so all you Australia dismisers know.

Are you saying appeasement is good?

I would believe the Europeans, especially the British, also learned that appeasement is bad. But that's just my opinion.
The European people are much less likely to have war on the table in a diplomatic negotion.
also, the Japanese learned that nukes are bad. very bad.
Yeah.

Are you saying appeasement is good?
When consistently and judiciously applied, yes.

When consistently and judiciously applied, yes.

It is the worst thing to do, just look at North Korea. We should have finished the job when we had the chance.

The US and Europe learned two different “lessons” from World War II.

US- Appeasement is bad. (bullshit)
Europe- War is bad.

I think we Euros, generally speaking, learnt this from the Great War.

I think we Euros, generally speaking, learnt this from the Great War.
Looks at World War II. Maybe you all took a class in it, but you failed.
It is the worst thing to do, just look at North Korea. We should have finished the job when we had the chance.
No...
Finishing off North Korea would have been the worst thing to do.

Looks at World War II. Maybe you all took a class in it, but you failed.

Couple of things here: firstly, note the word 'generally' in my post, it didn't just fall there by accident, secondly, the argument that WWII in Europe was just a delayed resolution of the 14-18 war is a compelling one, and raises certain questions about the inevitability of WWII, thirdly, situations like that of the Balkans and the former Yugoslavia also show that either the lesson is ineffective in stopping wars or is yet to be learned, and fourthly, just because we have learnt that things are bad, that doesn't mean we stop doing them - take drunken driving for an example, or even just something like smoking tobacco.

To be more serious though, if you look at the attitudes towards war both pre- and post- the Great War, then it certainly appears to be a watershed where one can draw the dividing line between the rampant jingoism and perception of war as a Boy's Own adventure and the later more sober realisation that it was indeed a bad thing*.


* to quote Sellers and Yeatman.

"Practially every other country that was involved in World War Two (sic.)" apart from Nepal, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, South Africa, Canada, Tannu Tuva, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Liberia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bahawalpur and Mongolia here, yes?

Practically every country. I dont think Tannu or Bahawalpur [whatever teh hell that is] did very much.

Finishing off North Korea now('now'=after Soviet Union fell to present) or then('then'=The Korean War)? Back then, it wasnt really possible, not with the hordes of Chinese troops anyway. Now is a different story. The only people who would care would be the Koreans, the Japanese and the Chinese may get concerned about nukes for awhile, but I doubt that the Kim Jong-Il is willing to sacrifice his entire country(including himself) for the VERY short-term glee of watching a few division of American troops go up in a fireball. Not to say it would be awful, but I just doubt Kim would risk it. He may be a dictator, but, unlike Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Saddam, at least he is a SANE dictator.

Couple of things here: firstly, note the word 'generally' in my post, it didn't just fall there by accident, secondly, the argument that WWII in Europe was just a delayed resolution of the 14-18 war is a compelling one, and raises certain questions about the inevitability of WWII, thirdly, situations like that of the Balkans and the former Yugoslavia also show that either the lesson is ineffective in stopping wars or is yet to be learned, and fourthly, just because we have learnt that things are bad, that doesn't mean we stop doing them - take drunken driving for an example, or even just something like smoking tobacco.

To be more serious though, if you look at the attitudes towards war both pre- and post- the Great War, then it certainly appears to be a watershed where one can draw the dividing line between the rampant jingoism and perception of war as a Boy's Own adventure and the later more sober realisation that it was indeed a bad thing*.


* to quote Sellers and Yeatman.
I get your meaning.

Don’t be overly offended by what I said, though. My people never even signed up for the class.

Don’t be overly offended by what I said, though.

If I had been offended I wouldn't be flinging 1066 & All That references back at you in response, instead I'd be pulling out the weapons-grade PG Wodehouse.

Practically every country. I dont think Tannu or Bahawalpur [whatever teh hell that is] did very much.

Whether they did very much or not is irrelevant.

Looks at World War II. Maybe you all took a class in it, but you failed.

No...
Finishing off North Korea would have been the worst thing to do.

If we had finished off North Korea we wouldn't have to deal with them now.

Finishing off North Korea now('now'=after Soviet Union fell to present) or then('then'=The Korean War)? Back then, it wasnt really possible, not with the hordes of Chinese troops anyway. Now is a different story. The only people who would care would be the Koreans, the Japanese and the Chinese may get concerned about nukes for awhile, but I doubt that the Kim Jong-Il is willing to sacrifice his entire country(including himself) for the VERY short-term glee of watching a few division of American troops go up in a fireball. Not to say it would be awful, but I just doubt Kim would risk it. He may be a dictator, but, unlike Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Saddam, at least he is a SANE dictator. I would argue that Mao, Stalin and Saddam were quite sane. They simply didn't care about people, or place any value on life other than their own. Kim Jong-Il on the other hand, I could kinda see as insane. What with all the theme parks and all.

If we had finished off North Korea we wouldn't have to deal with them now.

Yeah, we should have finished off all those pesky Mohammedans during the Crusades too, then we wouldn't have to deal with them now.

Kim Jong-Il on the other hand, I could kinda see as insane. What with all the theme parks and all.

North Korea has Theme Parks?

If I had been offended I wouldn't be flinging 1066 & All That references back at you in response, instead I'd be pulling out the weapons-grade PG Wodehouse.
Hey, you may have Wodehouse, but I’ve got Mencken, and I don’t think you’ve got the grapes for mutually assured destruction.

Kim Jong-Il on the other hand, I could kinda see as insane. What with all the theme parks and all.
Don't forget the abductions of Eastern European women.

Hey, you may have Wodehouse, but I’ve got Mencken, and I don’t think you’ve got the grapes for mutually assured destruction.

* moves his finger slowly away from the big red Dean Swift button *

All right here's my final say. (by final I mean not final.)
The US had little fighting and bombing on it's soil durring WWII.
Neither did several other countries.
The only reason we're talking about this is that the US is now world super power and people want to know why.
Basicly if Canada was world super power the thread would be titled Canada in the second world war. Or any of the other countries would didn't expirence total war. So again I say yay for oceans!:D

By the way, Europe, you're violent tendencies got us into two wars. Now when we want some wars you're all peaceful? It's very inconsiderate of you.;)

Actually Japanese forces landed on US soil on the Alaskan Islands. And I think Pearl Harbor counts as a major Bombing Raid.

Hawaii and Alaska were U.S. territories at the time, not states, placing them in the same category as Guam and the Phillipines, at the time. I might be wrong, but I don't think they counted as an invasion of the U.S.

"Practially every other country that was involved in World War Two (sic.)" apart from Nepal, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, South Africa, Canada, Tannu Tuva, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Liberia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bahawalpur and Mongolia here, yes?

Don't you think you're being just a wee bit disingenuous there?

It's not that I dispute your basic point. With Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand you're more or less spot on (though Australian troops played a key role in fighting in the then-Australian colony of New Guinea quite near the Australian mainland). And points for Newfoundland, which only joined the Canadian federation after the war. Any combination of those would have made your original point.

But of Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Liberia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Mongolia, IIRC only Brazil - which did in fact have combat troops on the ground in Italy - played more than a token role. Furthermore, several of those countries (for example Paraguay) only declared war in the final months of the war once it became obvious the Nazis were losing.

Nepal I exclude since I don't know what role gurkhas played in WWII.

Tonga and Bahawalpur weren't independent states at the time (they were monarchies under the British Empire) - and why not include every other princely state in British Empire if you're including Bahawalpur separately? Tannu Tuva's independence was, by WWII, a polite fiction that Stalin promptly terminated in 1944.

Hawaii and Alaska were U.S. territories at the time, not states, placing them in the same category as Guam and the Phillipines, at the time. I might be wrong, but I don't think they counted as an invasion of the U.S.
If the stuff in Africa didn’t count as an invasion of whatever European powers controlled the territories there, than Alaska and Hawaii don’t count as an invasion either.

By the way, Europe, you're violent tendencies got us into two wars. Now when we want some wars you're all peaceful? It's very inconsiderate of you.;)

We gave you your chance. You were late for both of them. Now that's just plain impolite.

By the way, Europe, you're violent tendencies got us into two wars. Now when we want some wars you're all peaceful? It's very inconsiderate of you.;)
Maybe Belarus will blow?(not likely...)

PS: Has there been a thread on this whole Belarus thing yet?

One thing seperates America from practically every other country that was involved in World War Two. This is I believe possibly the most significent thing which affects America's attitude to war when compared with the rest of the world. America did not have and significent fighting on its own soil. Unlike Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Poland, China etc America did not recieve any long periods of bombing campaigns to its mainland. Nor did it have forigen troops fighting or occupying any part of its territory. Hence forever the rest of the world (Europe in particular) have a view of war that the Americans frequently do not understand and often mistake for cowardace. Thus the American position in the world remains markedly different to everyone elses (One of the many reasons why September 11th has been overplayed as an international watershed in history as every other country is used to dealing with a war where civilian casulities are commonplace). What is everyone else's thoghts on this? How siginficent is the fact that America did not recieve any attack or fighting on its mainland during World War Two

yeh probably very significant. you can't judge an experience til you experience it. i bet eutrusca has posted on here saying how america's good ol' boys have experienced their fair share of combat, but then he tends to bullshit every thread remotely linked to the topic of the military into jingoistic oblivion. can't be arsed reading thru the thread, only read the OP so if eut hasn't posted yet i expect i'll be vindicated later. :P

However, the continental US did also undergo a sustained campaign of bombing too: it went on for at least six months and caused at least six casualties.

Gasp! Six casulaties. That will change a national psycie forever!

So, to sum up what we have learned from the thread so far:

1. Yes, it did.
2. Yes, it did.
and
3. Yes, it did.

Can you actually give any examples where the US mainland was significently bombed or occupied. Pearl Harbour was the only proper battle on US soil, and that was mostly in the water.

Possibly, but that isn't the detail I'm arguing with: the continental USA underwent a sustained and lethal bombing campaign. It may not have been a highly effective, sustained and lethal bombing campaign, but it was a sustained and lethal bombing campaign nonetheless.

Are you actually suggesting that it was in any way comparable to the British or the German experiance. I dont think it was.


Anyhow, Germany was hardly a picnic prior to 1943, but it was only then that it entereed into a state of total war, so it seems that casualties alone are hardly criterion enough to determine the existence of the state


America didnt have any 1000 strong bomber raids or any of its cities leveled.

Canada was part of England at the time and yes they did fight, in the British beach heads the D-Day armies for those beaches were made up of Canadians and British troops.
Canada was part of England during WW2? No way. :)

Yes Canadians did fight and for interest, there were over 1,000,000 Canadians in the service at the time. Not bad for a country of 11,000,000 at the time.

Australia.

We did come too close for comfort, though.

Are you actually suggesting that it was in any way comparable to the British or the German experiance. I dont think it was.


No, but you keep shifting your position: initially it was 'of all the countries involved in WWII', and now it is 'of all the countries centrally involved in WWII'. You are setting artificial bars.

Nevermind the fact that you haven't explained why Canada, New Zealand or Australia aren't currently trying to set the world to rights by a gung-ho application of firepower, even though they experienced pretty much the same things that the USA did during WWII.

Your initial hypothesis continues to seem faulty.

If you were saying something like 'since the long ago days of the Civil War the USA has not had the full horror of war brought home to it, and so has not been dissuaded from launched Quixotic campaigns across the globe', then that would be fair enough, but we would still be left wondering why countries like Brazil, Canada, Australia or New Zealand have managed not to cry havoc at the slightest provocation.

Can you actually give any examples where the US mainland was significently bombed or occupied. Pearl Harbour was the only proper battle on US soil, and that was mostly in the water.

Note how you have added the two conditions here: 'mainland' and 'significantly'.
They were absent from your initial post, as I have pointed out before.

Why include Pearl Harbour as a battle on US soil, but not Wake Island? Both were territories during WWII. Is it because only one of them has since become a state?

Yes, I believe it is a factor. No, I don't believe it is the only, or a very important one.

Nonetheless, WWII for the US was actually a rather pleasant experience, if you forgive the wording. The casualties weren't particularly high, and at the end the country was as powerful as no one had ever been before. They had a super-duper powerful economy, ergo military, they controlled bases and Allies all over the world, and their ideals had come out as the "good" ones and the others as the "bad" ones.

I don't think there is any argument to be made to compare the negative experiences European nations (plus Japan and others) have made with the comparatively easy let-offs of Pearl Harbour or the Bombing of Darwin. Basically, for them the story of WWII is a narrative of heroes, of adventure and so on. There is talk of destruction, but not of one's own. Not of one's own making.

And then there are those that have seen destruction and suffering, but instead of blaming war, they blame the other side (which, strictly speaking, is perfectly valid) and glorify the slaughter as great defence. And those are Russia and China, and particularly with the latter we'll see how that pans out.

One thing seperates America from practically every other country that was involved in World War Two. This is I believe possibly the most significent thing which affects America's attitude to war when compared with the rest of the world. America did not have and significent fighting on its own soil. Unlike Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Poland, China etc America did not recieve any long periods of bombing campaigns to its mainland. Nor did it have forigen troops fighting or occupying any part of its territory. Hence forever the rest of the world (Europe in particular) have a view of war that the Americans frequently do not understand and often mistake for cowardace. Thus the American position in the world remains markedly different to everyone elses (One of the many reasons why September 11th has been overplayed as an international watershed in history as every other country is used to dealing with a war where civilian casulities are commonplace). What is everyone else's thoghts on this? How siginficent is the fact that America did not recieve any attack or fighting on its mainland during World War Two
i think there's a fair amount of truth in what you say. i also think it goes a fairly long way to explaining america's economic dominance in the post-war era.

here in europe i guess we do have a different attitude to war - militarism is played down for the most part, nationalism is edgy, both quite unlike america from my POV.
round these parts i'm sure you can't go to a single village or town without seeing a prominent cenotaph to one of the two wars... we have at least 3 in the town centre here, and 25,000 civilians were killed in the blitzkrieg over this city alone (as stated on another memorial).

3,000 american civilians on 9-11 is a tragedy, of course, but the scale and long lasting effect of the destruction, fear and death wrought by both WW1 and WW2 still gives most europeans reason to fear war, and not embrace it as an accepted tactic of politics as some americans seem to clearly believe *coughBushcough*

i think the truth of it is that america saw a different war to us. and we're still feeling the aftermath of it... we have reason to admonish war and change our ways. i suppose, to some extent at least, america hasn't.

we learn best from our mistakes.

If we had finished off North Korea we wouldn't have to deal with them now.

ROFLMAO! Funniest thing I've heard all day.
*wipes tears of laughter from eyes*

One thing seperates America from practically every other country that was involved in World War Two. This is I believe possibly the most significent thing which affects America's attitude to war when compared with the rest of the world. America did not have and significent fighting on its own soil. Unlike Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Poland, China etc America did not recieve any long periods of bombing campaigns to its mainland. Nor did it have forigen troops fighting or occupying any part of its territory. Hence forever the rest of the world (Europe in particular) have a view of war that the Americans frequently do not understand and often mistake for cowardace. Thus the American position in the world remains markedly different to everyone elses (One of the many reasons why September 11th has been overplayed as an international watershed in history as every other country is used to dealing with a war where civilian casulities are commonplace). What is everyone else's thoghts on this? How siginficent is the fact that America did not recieve any attack or fighting on its mainland during World War Two
While I agree with the sentiment I think the arguement is a little flawed. Firstly people forget that Pearl Harbour had a much greater effect on the Ameican psychie than the 11th of September ever will. Secondly, it is not the USA that has a particularly unusual view of warfare, in as much as it is not very different from most countries before WWII and even a large number of those that have come into being since. However, total war has, in the medium term, changed European, Japanese, Russian and some other nations' view on warfare. If you consider the Sociological effects on Americans of the Civil war, for about fourty years after the US had a general disdain for warfare, limiting itself to policing actions on and within its boarders and a few small* ventures (Philipines for example)

*small in comparison to Britain, France and Japan in particular, but also most European nations.

I think what the Original post meant was America was the only major country without a total war (and has now become the only major country...)

Europe is alot more experienced in terms of actual war, and so its view is generally more peaceful. (The USA hasnt been in a proper war for about 200 years).

I think what the Original post meant was America was the only major country without a total war (and has now become the only major country...)

Was the Civil War all just a terrible dream I had one night after eating too much cheese?

Why include Pearl Harbour as a battle on US soil, but not Wake Island? Both were territories during WWII. Is it because only one of them has since become a state?
And don't forget the Philippines. It might have become independent after the war but at the time it was a US territory just like Hawaii.

Civilian casualties due to warfare have not been noted in the US since Sherman roasted Georgia alive. We've been able to isolate ourselves from the troubles of the rest of the world and make it so that those troubles would stay over there, while we enjoy our nice spot over here with our nice, weak neighbors to the north and the south.

And don't forget the Philippines. It might have become independent after the war but at the time it was a US territory just like Hawaii.

Indeed, I made my post and then considered going back and editing in mention of the Philippines, but then thought, nah - Wake Island mentioned alone might trigger the poster to do some research.

Can you actually give any examples where the US mainland was significently bombed or occupied. Pearl Harbour was the only proper battle on US soil, and that was mostly in the water.
Let us not forget the engagements in the Aleutians.

Nor did it have forigen troops fighting or occupying any part of its territory.
Not quite true: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/cp10.htm

Was the Civil War all just a terrible dream I had one night after eating too much cheese?

Robert E Lee exists only in your cheddar-affected mind...

The US did have Total War. It's territories were attacked, as was it's mainland. It lost millions of troops and many civilians in places like Wake Island and the Far East; importantly, the US industry was also placed in a wartime footing, a necessary part of Total War.

Let us not forget the engagements in the Aleutians.
Damn! You beat me to it! :p

One thing seperates America from practically every other country that was involved in World War Two. This is I believe possibly the most significent thing which affects America's attitude to war when compared with the rest of the world. America did not have and significent fighting on its own soil. Unlike Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Poland, China etc America did not recieve any long periods of bombing campaigns to its mainland. Nor did it have forigen troops fighting or occupying any part of its territory. Hence forever the rest of the world (Europe in particular) have a view of war that the Americans frequently do not understand and often mistake for cowardace. Thus the American position in the world remains markedly different to everyone elses (One of the many reasons why September 11th has been overplayed as an international watershed in history as every other country is used to dealing with a war where civilian casulities are commonplace). What is everyone else's thoghts on this? How siginficent is the fact that America did not recieve any attack or fighting on its mainland during World War Two

Not having a war fought on your own soil would cause different attitudes towards war, most likely to be more cavilier about it since you are not experienced with dealing with it yourself. Still, as time passes I'm sure that Europe will forget the horrors of WWII and become more aggressive in foreign policy.

Still, as time passes I'm sure that Europe will forget the horrors of WWII and become more aggressive in foreign policy.

I doubt it.

When was the last time 3,000 people were killed in England? (sorry I'm making a random guess at your country) Not since WWII so I think if they had hit England France Italy Germany etc the entire world would have reacted in much the same way as it did on 9-11.

As tragic and sad as it was, the World Trade Centre destruction was not a big a tragedy as subsequent disasters around the globe. I think we've all mourned 911 but it is time to get on with life and quit dwelling on it and killing innocents in the name of justice

ROFLMAO! Funniest thing I've heard all day.
*wipes tears of laughter from eyes*

Well, it is nice to see that dumbasses still exist on these forums.

I doubt it.

Memories fade. If history has taught us anything, it is that people never learn from it.

Canadians got Juno, the British got sword and gold and the Americans got Utah and Omaha and the operation at Point du Hoc. French guerilla fighters were also involved in one of the British landings but I can’t remember which.

The US and Europe learned two different “lessons” from World War II.

US- Appeasement is bad. (bullshit)
Europe- War is bad.

Also, Australia’ Northern coast was bombed and it faced a serious threat of Japanese invasion prior to the Battle of Coral Sea, just so all you Australia dismisers know.
Actually, what britain forgot is the lesson taught to it by the vikings. That's the problem. Appeasement is bad. It DOES NOT WORK. IT has NEVER worked in history w/o outside circumstances intervening.

Actually, what britain forgot is the lesson taught to it by the vikings. That's the problem. Appeasement is bad. It DOES NOT WORK. IT has NEVER worked in history w/o outside circumstances intervening.

Apeasement can work if you make it clear where your apeasement stops and action begins before hand. For instance, had Hitler been aware that Britian and France would have gone to war over Poland, chances are he wouldnt have.

Apeasement can work if you make it clear where your apeasement stops and action begins before hand. For instance, had Hitler been aware that Britian and France would have gone to war over Poland, chances are he wouldnt have.

I thought Britain and France made it clear that they would defend Poland if it was attacked? :confused:

Apeasement can work if you make it clear where your apeasement stops and action begins before hand. For instance, had Hitler been aware that Britian and France would have gone to war over Poland, chances are he wouldnt have.
That's not the appeasement working, that's the naked threat of force working.

Nepal I exclude since I don't know what role gurkhas played in WWII.


ooh just fighting in North Africa, Italy and giving the IJA a bloody nose in the jungles of Burma as part of 14th Army and some being in the Chindits

See, England got owned in WWII...
You know no history.

:headbang: How did I forget to mention them? I should remember that being
a WWII buff and all. and Canada and New Zealand
(sorry about that)
Spain and Portugal didn't even fight. not to mention the Swiss.
Northern Australia got heavily bombed by the Japanese.

Yeah, we bombed them.
911 is significant because we never declared war on them or attacked them. They attacked us first without reason. See, England got owned in WWII because the declared war on Germany first. Same with the other nations.
*cough*Pearl Harbor*cough*

England got owned? what sort of crack are you smoking? Can you explain to me how setting up a defensive network that managed to halt the luftwaffe, (which was approximately 5 times as big, combat experienced, better supplied, and just as well trained if not better), in its tracks, was getting owned? Can you explain to me how managing to fight (and win!)a war in Africa as well as defending Britain from constant bombing attacks was getting owned? Maybe you didn't mean it as such, but as a Brit who looks back on our past with pride I take that as an insult. Our ancestors did not take to the skies to defend Britain, the troops in the army did not fight and die on the beaches, our men onboard the Repulse, the Glowworm, the Hood, did not die fighting against superior odds, our people did not live in fear for three years against a ruthless bombing campaign so that in sixty years time they can be insulted for it.

Anyway, I agree with the OP. Although the US has had its hard its on its land (Eg 9/11), it hasn't anything on such a large scale as Europe/Russia or Japan or Vietnam. I think this most likely the defining difference between views on war between Americans and Europeans.

america bombed 50+ other countries after world war 2 .....

England got owned? what sort of crack are you smoking? Can you explain to me how setting up a defensive network that managed to halt the luftwaffe, (which was approximately 5 times as big, combat experienced, better supplied, and just as well trained if not better), in its tracks, was getting owned? Can you explain to me how managing to fight (and win!)a war in Africa as well as defending Britain from constant bombing attacks was getting owned? Maybe you didn't mean it as such, but as a Brit who looks back on our past with pride I take that as an insult. Our ancestors did not take to the skies to defend Britain, the troops in the army did not fight and die on the beaches, our men onboard the Repulse, the Glowworm, the Hood, did not die fighting against superior odds, our people did not live in fear for three years against a ruthless bombing campaign so that in sixty years time they can be insulted for it.

Anyway, I agree with the OP. Although the US has had its hard its on its land (Eg 9/11), it hasn't anything on such a large scale as Europe/Russia or Japan or Vietnam. I think this most likely the defining difference between views on war between Americans and Europeans.

Well, they had one of the bloodiest civil wars to be known to man...

Well, they had one of the bloodiest civil wars to be known to man...
No they didn't. Russia's civil war 1917 to 1920 cost 10 million lives. That is also the average minimum death toll for a Chinese civil war.

No they didn't. Russia's civil war 1917 to 1920 cost 10 million lives. That is also the average minimum death toll for a Chinese civil war.

Yes, notice that is why I said one of them, not the most. I know that both the Russian andthe Chinese ones suffered greater casualties.

a good site to find out about ood stuf about WWII

http://www.regiments.org/nations/index.htm

Well, they had one of the bloodiest civil wars to be known to man...

You say this as if the English Civil War was just a walk in the park where small children presented each other with brightly colour posseys.

EDIT: to say nothing of Scotland (does the name 'Butcher' Cumberland mean anything to you) or for that matter or Ireland. The Welsh had it lucky, having the good fortune to be subjugated by sword in a time almost entirely now forgotten.

Its still BS. Canada has never had even a civil war, and we understand war better than americans. You dont see us marching against anyone who disagrees with us.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/firstwar/canada/Canada19
For a nation of eight million people Canada's war effort was remarkable. A total of 619,636 men and women served in the Canadian forces in the First World War,

Canadians make some of the best soldiers in the world. In World War one, the british general Sir Douglas Haig lost 200 000+ men trying to take Passchendaele. He then told Lieutenant-General Currie (A Canadian) to take Passchendaele.

Currie told him that he wasnt that nuts, and no. Haig insisted, he ordered Currie to do it. Currie relented, stating that it would take 16 000 Canadian lives to do it. Against all odds, The Canadian boys did it!

We are peaceful people, but tough as nails.

One thing seperates America from practically every other country that was involved in World War Two. This is I believe possibly the most significent thing which affects America's attitude to war when compared with the rest of the world. America did not have and significent fighting on its own soil. Unlike Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Poland, China etc America did not recieve any long periods of bombing campaigns to its mainland. Nor did it have forigen troops fighting or occupying any part of its territory. Hence forever the rest of the world (Europe in particular) have a view of war that the Americans frequently do not understand and often mistake for cowardace. Thus the American position in the world remains markedly different to everyone elses (One of the many reasons why September 11th has been overplayed as an international watershed in history as every other country is used to dealing with a war where civilian casulities are commonplace). What is everyone else's thoghts on this? How siginficent is the fact that America did not recieve any attack or fighting on its mainland during World War Two

America did not suffer too much from World War II and Europe did. Yes I realize the US was attacked, but none of them were destructive for millions. Every place that was attacked was fixed in less a few years and the losses were light. The fact that America suffered little allowed it to become a even more powerful world superpower and control the world economy. The war didnt hurt their economy at all, in fact the war improved it. America also didnt suffer huge losses (only 400,000 compared to millions in major European countries). Europe suffered a lot from the war (cities destroyed, millions killed, social chaos, etc.) Europe stills remembers the world wars so of course they shy away from war. The only war America suffered greatly from was the Civil War. This happened over 140 years ago versus Europe's World War II happening a little over 60 years ago. Plus when America teaches about the Civil War they spend little time on it. America has mostly forgotten how bad the Civil War was, while Europe remembers it well.
That means America does not really know bad war can be so they quickly jump into wars. The reason why other countries that came out of World War II with minimal damage arent so quick to enter war is because they arent a world superpower. A South American country doesnt have the military, navy, or economy to support overseas wars: the US does. So yes the fact the US did not suffer much from World War II allowed it to better its position and caused it to enter several wars with or without European help.