Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what? We were not bound by any treaty obligation. AU and NZ were part of the Commonwealth. In 1927 Winston Churchill stated that war between the U.S. and Britain was "not unthinkable."
war between any countries is not unthinkable, in fact any country that doesnt plan for a war with their neighbors, or any other country for that matter, is foolish.
Quote:
We should never have taken the Phillipines, and well before 1941 we were in a process of withdrawal from there, although even if independence was completely established before 1941, Roosevelt probably would've kept our troops there as a tripwire for the war he wanted.
we took the phillipines away from spain. now if you want a war that was essentially unprovoked, THAT war was in fact unprovoked as there was real evidence at the time that the spanish did not sink the maine, but rather the maine blew up as a result of an accident on board the ship.
as for FDR, in 1938 he KNEW that war was coming, not because he wanted the war, but because he could read the happenings going on in europe and asia, and he knew that the US would be drawn into those conflicts at some point in time. he wanted reelection, and he also knew that if he even suggested that the US would join the war, he would lose. i may not like many of his policies, but the man could see what was going on in the world.
Quote:
Britain was not an ally either. FDR privately remarked that if Congress knew all he'd been doing to let the British use America for their own interests, he'd be impeached.
you have proof of this? as for britain not being an ally, rubbish. we were allies in world war one, and while we drifted apart in the intervening years, we did not want to see a germany dominated europe. russia was not an ally either, but we ended up fighting on the same side in world war two. in fact stalin was quite willing to back germany against the west if hitler had asked him to. it wasnt until mid 1941 when germany invaded russia that stalin saw the light and realized that germany was not an ally despite the non aggression treaty russia signed with germany.
[/quote]Threaten India? Oh, you mean the Raj. I thought you were talking about India. India wanted to be neutral.[/quote]
yes india wanted to remain neutral, however the japanese were pushing in that direction because they wanted the natural resources that india had. do you really think that japan would have stopped at taking burma? if you do then you are a much larger fool than i give you credit for.
Quote:
Anti-war conservatives make the same arguments, and they, not liberals or progressives, have been the main influence on my thought. Not that it matters much: the truth is where you find it.
and how many of these antiwar conservatives were around in 1939? one of my grand fathers served in the navy then, and the other was in a protected occupation, he was an conductor for southern pacific, and as such was not allowed to join the military.
war between any countries is not unthinkable, in fact any country that doesnt plan for a war with their neighbors, or any other country for that matter, is foolish.
Yet we have to defend any countries we were once on the same side of a war with. OK.
(We were allies with Japan in WW1 and the Boxer Rebellion, does that count for anything?)
Quote:
we took the phillipines away from spain. now if you want a war that was essentially unprovoked, THAT war was in fact unprovoked as there was real evidence at the time that the spanish did not sink the maine, but rather the maine blew up as a result of an accident on board the ship.
Yes. Had we not been in the Phillipines, there would've been much less opportunity for Roosevelt's warmongering.
Quote:
he wanted reelection, and he also knew that if he even suggested that the US would join the war, he would lose. i may not like many of his policies, but the man could see what was going on in the world.
Oh, the poor baby! He couldn't be content with two terms, so he lied his way into a third term and a second world war. What a hero!
Quote:
you have proof of this?
"Roosevelt never overlooked the fact that his actions might lead to his immediate or eventual impeachment."
Robert Sherwood. "Roosevelt and Hopkins," (Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1948), p. 274.
Quote:
yes india wanted to remain neutral, however the japanese were pushing in that direction because they wanted the natural resources that india had. do you really think that japan would have stopped at taking burma? if you do then you are a much larger fool than i give you credit for.
I have no idea what exact plans they had for India apart from drawing it out of the British sphere and into their own. Certainly they wanted a friendly government in India, and certainly India looked at Britain, not Japan, as their main menace.
Quote:
and how many of these antiwar conservatives were around in 1939?
Ever heard of the America First Committee? Some of them were liberals, but the majority were not.
unfortunately that was not possible. and if you had read a real history book, you would have known this.
Perhaps you could provide a title of a "real" history book??
Just for kicks and giggles, provide a title of a "fake" history book as well...I mean if there are "real" history books, then by implication, there too must be "fake" history books. I'd like to see what titles, if any, you could cite.
Wow, this explains everything and nothing at the same time!
The JAPANESE ("Japs" is a derogatory term and is rather antiquated) started it how? Assuming the "we" is yours (and my grandfather's) generation finished it how?
Why did the JAPANESE start the war? What was their big beef with the U.S. anyway?
Why did the U.S. use not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan? Why was it necessary for the U.S. to use two of the most destructive weapons at that time to end the war? Was it a given that using atomic weapons on Japan--was it a given that the Japanese would then surrender?
These are the questions that your simplistic and jingoistic statements ignore--and the above questions are the type of questions that historians and political scientists try to answer in their books.
Maybe you should try reading a book about the bomb. You could start with Hersey's Hiroshima. Then, assuming you can read, rejoin the discussion. Maybe then you can add something substantive, but I won't hold my breath.
LOL...I love raising the ire of *******s.
Listen up you arrogant twit, cuz I'm only going to say this once:
I read the book you mentioned along with several others that recounted the history of the Manhattan Project, as well as other tomes that expounded on the options we had for ending the War. I minored in History at the University of Texas twice, when I talk my to B.A.s from there.
I know all the arguments against us dropping the Big One on the Japs: that, in essence, some say, the Japanese had already pretty much surrendered to us unconditionally: that the only caveat the asked was that we allow theire Emporer to remain in plance. And that our military's dogma about how the bomb would save tens of thousands of American lives, as it would spare us the unsavory option of mounting an air and land invasion.
And also the argument that the only reason we nuked 'em was to send a "hands off" message to the Russians, who were on their way over there.
I know all this. Yet the Bottom Line is that they blindsided us at Pearl at killed thousands of our young men. Thus, they opened Pandora's Box and really deserve no philosophical ruminations on compassion and morality.
Maybe you're familiar with General Sherman's famous quote about the cruelty of war? Look it up; it applies to this discussion.
Peace.
Listen up you arrogant twit, cuz I'm only going to say this once:
I read the book you mentioned along with several others that recounted the history of the Manhattan Project, as well as other tomes that expounded on the options we had for ending the War. I minored in History at the University of Texas twice, when I talk my to B.A.s from there.
I know all the arguments against us dropping the Big One on the Japs: that, in essence, some say, the Japanese had already pretty much surrendered to us unconditionally: that the only caveat the asked was that we allow theire Emporer to remain in plance. And that our military's dogma about how the bomb would save tens of thousands of American lives, as it would spare us the unsavory option of mounting an air and land invasion.
And also the argument that the only reason we nuked 'em was to send a "hands off" message to the Russians, who were on their way over there.
I know all this. Yet the Bottom Line is that they blindsided us at Pearl at killed thousands of our young men. Thus, they opened Pandora's Box and really deserve no philosophical ruminations on compassion and morality.
Maybe you're familiar with General Sherman's famous quote about the cruelty of war? Look it up; it applies to this discussion.
Peace.
The Geneva and Hague Conventions apply as well--as does Eugenics, which had not died a much-needed death by the time Truman issued the order to use nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians. In other words, racism played a part in Truman's decision-making.
Not only that, but the U.S. ignored the agreed-upon rules for conducting warfare--and then lambasted the Axis powers for not living up to the agreed-upon conventions for waging a "rule-bound" war.
Why would anyone minor in history twice? That sound redundant. Why not just major in the field if you're going to minor in it twice?
What's a *******? I've never heard that and since you say I'm one, I'd like to know what it is.
The Geneva and Hague Conventions apply as well--as does Eugenics, which had not died a much-needed death by the time Truman issued the order to use nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians. In other words, racism played a part in Truman's decision-making.
Not only that, but the U.S. ignored the agreed-upon rules for conducting warfare--and then lambasted the Axis powers for not living up to the agreed-upon conventions for waging a "rule-bound" war.
Why would anyone minor in history twice? That sound redundant. Why not just major in the field if you're going to minor in it twice?
What's a *******? I've never heard that and since you say I'm one, I'd like to know what it is.
The Japanese did not sign the Geneva Convention (1929).
They did sign the Hague Conventions, but certainly did not abide by them as they never saw a War Crime they did not want to commit.
As for Truman and Racism as well as Eugenics, can you produce an Executive Order, official memo, document, comminique, etc where it is explicitly stated that the bombs will be used for racist intentions i.e. they will be nuked because they are Japanese or for the purposes of Eugenics?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
