Originally posted by welsharnieI'm not sure the USA entering the war was the correct action 65 years ago. As an isolationist I would have let Europe and Asia burn until the fires went out for lack of fuel.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that just because something was the correct action 65 years ago means that it is the right course of action now!
Of course US help was vital in WW2, even before they actually started actively fighting, but I fail to see what bearing that has on the descision to place weapons in space at great cost no doubt.
As for weapons in space: I assume there are already weapons in space and if not there will be whether or not the USA places them there. Just as with nuclear weapons, many countries have the technology to orbit weapons.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe only reason that Hitler declared war on the U.S. is because Japan, Italy, and Germany were allies. Therefore, once Japan attacked the U.S. and the U.S. responded by decaring war on Japan, Germany and Italy both had an "obligation" to assist their Far East ally of Japan. So it wasn't that Hitler was "dumb" enough to declare war, it was simply the course of action that made sense at the time.
All true but the destroyers didn't start getting into action until September 1940 and were a small part of the total British naval force. I was only disputing your comment that "but for" US help in 1940 Britain would have lost the war which I don't think can be reasonably argued. I also don't think US material aid alone would have changed the ...[text shortened]... s doubtful that Roosevelt could have gotten a declaration of war against Germanty at that time.
Originally posted by DelmerIf the United States had not entered the war 65 years ago, then basically the entire world, or what would have been left of it, would be speaking German. Also, that is a very harsh sentiment when you say that you would have "let Europe and Asia burn until the fires went out for lack of fuel." As a fellow human, how could you say something so disturbing and unsettling?
I'm not sure the USA entering the war was the correct action 65 years ago. As an isolationist I would have let Europe and Asia burn until the fires went out for lack of fuel.
As for weapons in space: I assume there are already weapons in space and if not there will be whether or not the USA places them there. Just as with nuclear weapons, many countries have the technology to orbit weapons.
Originally posted by WildfireGod, does anybody actually KNOW history on this site?????? If Germany and Japan were such good allies that Germany was obligated to go to war with the US because Japan did, what happened in June 1941? Germany went to war with the USSR then, but Japan NEVER declared war on the Soviets and was VERY anxious to avoid such a war. Delmer, let him borrow your book!
The only reason that Hitler declared war on the U.S. is because Japan, Italy, and Germany were allies. Therefore, once Japan attacked the U.S. and the U.S. responded by decaring war on Japan, Germany and Italy both had an "obligation" to assist their Far East ally of Japan. So it wasn't that Hitler was "dumb" enough to declare war, it was simply the course of action that made sense at the time.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Originally posted by Delmer
All true but the destroyers didn't start getting into action until September 1940 and were a small part of the total British naval force. I was only disputing your comment that "but for" US help in 1940 Britain would have lost the war which I don't think can be reasonably argued. I also don't think US material aid alone would have changed the ...[text shortened]... s doubtful that Roosevelt could have gotten a declaration of war against Germanty at that time.
If we'd have done that in 1940 you'd most likely be in a Russian or German slave labor camp today, welsharnie."
Nowhere in that statement did I unequivocally state "...but for US help in 1940 Britian would have lost the war..." I did say that I think it most likely that either Russia or Germany would have prevailed against Britian without US help. If we would have adopted a firm isolationist policy in 1940 and maintained that policy I believe that would have happened. Just my opinion.
Originally posted by no1marauderLOL! No, I have a feeling that I may need it again before I wander off to actually play chess on this site.
God, does anybody actually KNOW history on this site?????? If Germany and Japan were such good allies that Germany was obligated to go to war with the US because Japan did, what happened in June 1941? Germany went to war with the USSR then, but Japan NEVER declared war on the Soviets and was VERY anxious to avoid such a war. Delmer, let him borrow your book!
Originally posted by WildfireI don't think the Germans could have conquered the world. They didn't even manage to conquer Russia. Stalin and Hitler would have destroyed each other.
If the United States had not entered the war 65 years ago, then basically the entire world, or what would have been left of it, would be speaking German. Also, that is a very harsh sentiment when you say that you would have "let Europe and Asia burn until the fires went out for lack of fuel." As a fellow human, how could you say something so disturbing and unsettling?
What's disturbing and unsettling about letting other countries settle their own conflicts?
Originally posted by DelmerI don't know, since when was the US interested in letting countries sort out their own conflicts?
I don't think the Germans could have conquered the world. They didn't even manage to conquer Russia. Stalin and Hitler would have destroyed each other.
What's disturbing and unsettling about letting other countries settle their own conflicts?
Originally posted by welsharnieThe USA isolationist movement was quite strong before and during WWI and WWII. And you help make my point. The USA gets nothing from foreign involvement except debts, corpses and sarcastic second guessing.
I don't know, since when was the US interested in letting countries sort out their own conflicts?
Originally posted by DelmerLike George Washington said; "Beware of foreign entanglements". I'm glad we agree on SOMETHING, Del.
The USA isolationist movement was quite strong before and during WWI and WWII. And you help make my point. The USA gets nothing from foreign involvement except debts, corpses and sarcastic second guessing.
Originally posted by no1marauderJapan was focused on the Pacific and capturing territory in southern Asia and the area around Manchuria, therefore they didn't want to start another conflict with the U.S.S.R., because it would have stretched their troops too far. Besides, Germany invading the U.S.S.R. was because they wanted natural resources to help the war effort. Japan was not one to involve themselves in other countries' personal vendettas. Also, just a side note, SIMMER DOWN!!!!!
God, does anybody actually KNOW history on this site?????? If Germany and Japan were such good allies that Germany was obligated to go to war with the US because Japan did, what happened in June 1941? Germany went to war with the USSR then, but Japan NEVER declared war on the Soviets and was VERY anxious to avoid such a war. Delmer, let him borrow your book!
Originally posted by DelmerWhat's disturbing and unsettling about your comment is that you would let people kill each other until there are none left to be killed. True, countries should settle their own conflicts, however the conflict in question was a WORLD WAR, not just a localized one. Had it not been for timely U.S. intervention, billions could have been slaughtered not only in the fighting, but in the Holocaust as well.
I don't think the Germans could have conquered the world. They didn't even manage to conquer Russia. Stalin and Hitler would have destroyed each other.
What's disturbing and unsettling about letting other countries settle their own conflicts?
Originally posted by no1marauderLOL! Yes, No. 1, we do share some common ground. We probably agree on more than either of us realize. In 66 years I've never voted Republican or Democrat and I've always been an isolationist. But once troops are committed and boots hit the ground, I support them. And I've never been comfortable listening to people second guess the rights and wrongs of what they do in the field. It's an extreme environment and extreme things happen.
Like George Washington said; "Beware of foreign entanglements". I'm glad we agree on SOMETHING, Del.
Originally posted by WildfireThen why the sarcastic: " I don't know, since when was the US interested in letting countries sort out their own conflicts?"
What's disturbing and unsettling about your comment is that you would let people kill each other until there are none left to be killed. True, countries should settle their own conflicts, however the conflict in question was a WORLD WAR, not just a localized one. Had it not been for timely U.S. intervention, billions could have been slaughtered not only in the fighting, but in the Holocaust as well.
Or perhaps no sarcasm was intended.
I suppose the conflict truly became a World War but it was always primarily a European war generated by another European war that ended less than 20 years earlier. There was also an Asian aspect of course, but that conflict was dwarfed by the European conflict.
Given the population of the world at the time, I doubt that billions would have been slaughtered. But even if that was true, and especially if that was true, perhaps the countries in conflict should have better looked after their own defenses in the period following World War I. Instead of a policy of appeasement in the 1930s, perhaps some timely preemptive strikes against Germany by France and England would have been warrented. Mein Kampf was obtainable. I think "The Triumph of the Will" was available though I'm not certain. Hitler's general world view was not a secret.