NationStates Jolt Archive

A common arguement, I know, but since I don't do very much NS foruming I'm curious as to your opinions.

EDIT: Er, argument.

Who cares? Not like we can change it anyway.

We learn history to see if we can do better next time.

Should it? Yes, definiately. Could it? Not really; an isolationist Congress stopped Roosevelt from openly declaring war.

We learn history to see if we can do better next time.

History doesn't repeat itself, historians do. Or are you suggesting there will be another WWII?

Sorry Keruvalia, but in that case you are mistaken in thinking that. History repeats itself quite often.

I don't think they could have changed much if they had joined earlier. They were still on the other side of the world, and they were still lacking in a big army (even moreso if they had joined earlier).

And since they were sending supplies over anyways, I don't think the difference would have been huge.

It happened as fast as could possibly be done.....damn isolationists!

History repeats itself quite often.

Name once.

Name once.

Nasa ignores contractor. Challenger blows up.
Nasa ingores contractor. Columbia blows up.

Democrats believe Bush is a monkey. He gets elected in 2000.
Democrats believe Bush is a monkey. He gets RE-elected in 2004.

Tsar Nicky doesn't believe the Germans will attack, is horribly surprised when Kaiser Bill does it.
Joe Stalin doesn't believe the Germans will attack, is horribly suprised when Adolph Hitler does it.

...and those are just the easy ones. ;)

Should the US have entered WWII sooner?

We couldn't have entered any sooner. We weren't hard yet.

Nasa ignores contractor. Challenger blows up.
Nasa ingores contractor. Columbia blows up.
Nasa scientist use metric, programmers use statute(impereal), probe clides with Mars.
Nasa scientist use metric, programmers use statute(impereal), probe clides with Mars.

Nasa scientist use metric, programmers use statute(impereal), probe clides with Mars.
Nasa scientist use metric, programmers use statute(impereal), probe clides with Mars.

Ooo! Good one!!!

We couldn't have entered any sooner. We weren't hard yet.

That actually isn't that bad of a metaphor.

The US didn't have any reason to enter the war earlier. We had not been attacked, and we had no treaty obligations.

We would have had no casus belli.

The US didn't have any reason to enter the war earlier. We had not been attacked, and we had no treaty obligations.

We would have had no casus belli.

So proactively attacking a totalitarian alliance was, of course, out of the question.

A common arguement, I know, but since I don't do very much NS foruming I'm curious as to your opinions.
Let's just say it wasn't one minute too soon.

The US didn't have any reason to enter the war earlier. We had not been attacked, and we had no treaty obligations.

We would have had no casus belli.


I'm fairly neutral on this issue, but I do disagree with this. While there weren't any treaty obligations, our allies had been attacked, and there was a genocidal maniac trying to take over Europe. The reasons for entering were strong, even before Pearl Harbor; the only reason I can see that we SHOULDN'T have entered is that the reasons against entering were also very strong.

Let's just say it wasn't one minute too soon.

Quite agreed.

Well the problem is not whether United States should have joined the war early or not. The main cause of WWII is because of the unfair Treaty of Versailles. Also it is due to the failure of the League of Nations. This idea was fist proposed by an American, Woodrow, however the americans chose not to join this. This is the basis of the problem because they needed a leader, someone who stood for what they believed in to re-enforce this nations peace goal. Without United States, it failed to do its goal. Also because during that time, there was the Great Depression so many of the countries were busy looking after their own country. This is a VERY light touch of all the details of the reasons leading up to the war but the main point is, if the Treaty of Versailles was more fair and that US joined the League of Nations, there probably will be no WWII.

Well the problem is not whether United States should have joined the war early or not. The main cause of WWII is because of the unfair Treaty of Versailles. Also it is due to the failure of the League of Nations. This idea was fist proposed by an American, Woodrow, however the americans chose not to join this. This is the basis of the problem because they needed a leader, someone who stood for what they believed in to re-enforce this nations peace goal. Without United States, it failed to do its goal. Also because during that time, there was the Great Depression so many of the countries were busy looking after their own country. This is a VERY light touch of all the details of the reasons leading up to the war but the main point is, if the Treaty of Versailles was more fair and that US joined the League of Nations, there probably will be no WWII.

Not a bad point. However, since the USA was so slow to act in WWII, and since all the League of Nations could do (by its own terms) was to issue economic sanctions, where is the logic that says the United States would have made any difference in the league of nations' fail to act?

The United States had no reason to act any faster than it did.

In many ways, Nazi Germany was LESS threatening to the US than Great Britain was. Don't imagine that the US and Britain were on good terms; one US secretary of state (Cordell Hull) was said to have opined that the crushing of Britain was the one good thing the Nazi's could have done.
Then, the Nazis attacked Stalin. Most Americans saw this as a good thing.

The US did have problems with Imperial Japan, and we all know how that turned out. What a lot of people don't know is that even after Pearl Harbour, there was a strong drive to stay out of the European War; had Germany not declared war, it is actually unlikely Roosevelt could have commanded the support in Congress to declare war on them

Not a bad point. However, since the USA was so slow to act in WWII, and since all the League of Nations could do (by its own terms) was to issue economic sanctions, where is the logic that says the United States would have made any difference in the league of nations' fail to act?

USA didn't join the LoN, despite Woodrow Willson(sorry if that's not his name) creating. They could also invade, but it had no standing army, and also had no real need to do so to any country. With the US' backing, sanctions could also have meant something (unlike the oil embargo on Mussolini, when the USA made fat cash off of him).

But that's history for you.

Anyway, it would have been better for them to join the war earlier, but the reality is that Congress stopped that happening and the government was vaguely in favour of the Nazis.