WWI and WWII Discussion

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Here's a discussion thread to discuss the two World Wars. Just a question for advocates of U.S. intervention in these wars:
1. Using the just-war theory, what justification did America have to get involved in WWI (and don't say "Lusitania". That was a British ship that had prior warning about a German attack.)

- There had been enormous pressure on Wilson to act. The sinking of the Lusitania wasn't the only reason given that it happened one month short of two years before the offical US entry into the War. The Luisitana was not the only issue relating to the interception of US merchant shipping. So the extension of the 'just war' to include economic interests could be made.


2. If the U.S. had not intervened in WWI, would it have been more likely that a treaty fairer to the Germans would have ended it, rather than the one-sided Versailles Treaty?

- Not a chance. The European allies wanted blood.

3. Had a less one-sided treaty than Versailles ended the war, would it have been as likely for Hitler to have risen to power on a nationalistic platform?

- The Versailles Treaty left Germany - without significant industry, reliant on international support, and ripe for the hyper-inflation that would make Germany so incredibly vulnerable when the Depression hit. Without those economic conditions Hitler wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

4. Had the British not drawn artificial boundaries for Eastern Europe and the Middle East, would the conflicts in the Balkans, Palestine, and the Muslim World have been as likely?

- Of course not. You arbitrarily carve a country up without consideration for socio-cultural concerns... they start fighting? No s**t Sherlock.

5. Should Roosevelt and Chuchill have opened up their immigration policy to Jews and other non-Aryans fleeing Nazi Germany?

- Again, of course they should have.

6. Would the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor have happened if Roosevelt had not placed sanctions against Japan?

- I'm not sure. Japan was desperate to flex her muscles on the international stage. The sanctions levelled by not only the US, but places like Australia as well. Made Japan not only ambitious, but horribly slighted... and desperate.

7. If we needed to declare war against Germany to stop Hitler, why didn't we 'need' to declare war on Russia to stop the genocidal Stalin? Did we 'need' to declare war on France in the 19th Century to stop Napoleon?

- Normally, Napoleon declared war on others. Russia conquered in a far less overt way, it was easy to go after Hilter. Hitler's genocidal desires weren't exactly the front page stories - it was a case of a blood-thirsty fascist conquering Western Europe by force.

8. Given that Hitler couldn't cross the English Channel, how likely would it have been for Hitler to invade the United States?

- Hilter was never any physical threat to the US, he was a significant political and economic threat. Plus the alliance issue is always there.

9. Does it matter that German civilians were targeted during both wars?

- Why wouldn't it matter. The German civilians were not responsible for the actions of their governments and military. The destructions of Coventry and Dresden, and all the others were inexcuseable bloodbaths.

10. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki really necessary to end the war, since the Japanese were willing to negociate a conditional surrender?

- Technically no. However, Truman had been given assurances from Stalin at Potsdam that he would be prepared to move forces to the Pacific to help invade Japan in early August. The military were terrifed of what having a Soviet presence in Japan would mean. They beat Stalin to Japan to stop him making any claims on it. Plus the argument that the Japanese military may not have respected a conditional surrender, and may have fought on regardless without something like an atomic bomb is not completely without merit.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hitler was a threat... but not a significant physical threat to the Continental US. In other words, he could never invade. Japan was a far bigger threat to Australia than Germany to the US - our mainland was bombed and we did risk invasion.

On this topic - yes, Hitler's fate was sealed with Operation Barbarossa - the invasion of the USSR. Hitler, with split forces was screwed, the defeat was almost inevitable, it was just a matter of timing.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

SPC, you are naive and stupid if you think Hitler was not a threat to the United States in 1941.

Exactly.  And I can't believe someone would say Germany was not a threat just because it couldn't invade. So what?  It could sink our ships.  It could send sabotuers to bomb our installations. Those threats, combined with a declaration of war, completely justified President Roosevelt's response in kind.

I agree. Roosevelt was completely justifed, both in the lend-lease program and their eventual entry.

Hitler was a threat, but the type of threat is important.