Can someone help me find where Franklin D. Roosevelt said "Hitler built a fortress around Europe, but he forgot to put a roof on it" i need the year speech or document i have looking for a long time just need some help thanks!
If you are watching this video, you are one of the few intellectual beings left on this Earth, have a love of history or you were playing Call of Duty: World at War.
George Washington , John Adams, Abraham Lincoln , FDR.... this country was ordained from our creation, with great leaders... This speech was magnificent. England , Europe and the world needed a savior and he was provided on Dec 8th 1941.
@Navymav thanks for the responce yes i think the whole supporting the mother country Britain is a big part of why the US became involved US and Britain are always natural allies just look at what happened with Iraq. I agree dropping the atomic bomb can be seen as being a quick end to what would have otherwise been a very long horrific protracted nightmare in trying to conquer the japanese mainland with as you say pretty much the japanese would have defended it to the last man woman and child.
refuting all opposition who attack this Great Nation as a whole. I do accept and appreciate contsructive criticism, and it is welcome. I hope that my humble assortment of knowledge will suffice in helping both of you, Pine and MrNixity, understand the true reasons that lie behind the Conflict of WW2. Seriously, Read Pearl Harbor; it gives great insight to the years, months, and moments that led and built up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and US involvment in WW2.
I have never actually responded to a comment on Youtube before. I will say in cooperation with you both that the U.S. DID indeed carry itself in a rather self-centered manner after the conclusion the War, what with the ultimate power of the Security Council of The UN, and so-on, but that is another debate. THis one focused upon the Declaration OF War that entered the US into a 4 year conflict around the world, and I am a patriotic American who will stand by my President, no matter the situation
from an omnipotent point of view. Roosevelt was not trying to enter the war, but rather circumvent it through politics and support of others. However, this was foiled because of hasty action by some of his cabinet, who, through diplomatic fopas, succeeded in the accidental provocation of the Empire of Japan into full out war (for more detail regarding this, read Pearl Harbor: FDR Leads the Nation INto War by Steven M. Gillon). This is a much longer response than is permitted, and
rather than surrender to an INVADING force. This combined with the calculated statistics that you love so much, Pine, coagulate into the solution that Wilson came up with: to use his brain and save the world trouble, rather than adding to it. Now, this entire week-long+ debate has been about the validity of the speech itself. I think with all of the irrefutable evidence listed in above essay response, one can begin to see only SOME of the big picture of what was REALLy going on
Two, you have the humanitarian viewpoint, arguing that, perhaps, a war of attrition and diplomatic negotiations would have been sufficient. THis is where the Human "x-factor" comes in: the japanese are a very ordered and structured people, still are; at the time, they would teach the children a song that said "oh emperor, my emperor, let me bleed at your feet." this mentality fortifies the position that, in fact, the japanese people would have literally fought to the last man, woman, and child,
and to look at simple numbers. However, that human "x-factor" can never be completely taken out. Take the dropping of the atomic bomb, for example. That could be perceived both ways: One, you have a calculated decision by Woodrow Wilson, that instead of risking the projected loss of another 1-2 million american lives, plus countless native Japanese, and extending the war another possible 1-2 years, he decided to use a strategic advantage, and cut the losses for both sides;
Instead, he fell back on the age-old subliminal agreement that we would support our MOther country, Britain, and so he proceeded to send them vital supplies, seeing as how the best way to keep us OUT of the war, was to keep Britain IN the war. Now, pine, you proceeded to focus and comment on some of the technological aspects of the war, and on statistics rather than human morals. I commend you on this, seeing as how it is very hard to detach oneself from a very emotional topic
to believe that the United States did indeed have something to be worried about, seeing as how our standing army was no less than 180,000 as of 1937, and was ranked 18 in the world at the time. Roosevelt understood this, and the continually deteriorating situation in Europe, and, although he was a staunch Internationalist, he was NOT directly attempting to draw America into the war; he even knew that he first needed american support for a military spool-up to be able to wage a two front war.
of the weak and fragile League of Nations and the appeasement deal brought about between British prime minister Chamberlain and Hitler to "have piece in our time," where as CHurchill saw it for the truth, that we simply "had defeat without war." The awesome power of the German military, coupled with the fierce and brutal forces of Japan that also had been training and honing their skills in the takeover of Machuria, the press on Burma, and the takeover of French Indochina, would leave me
of the war: we were using outdated machinery and gear, equipping our soldiers with, literally, rusting cantines and 50 year old rifles. This opposed to the refined fighting forces of the German Wermacht, who had been battle-hardened by over 8 years of fighting in the "Liebensreilm" mentality, with Hitler taking over the Rhineland, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and "anschluss" agreement between Germany and Austria, and countless other European victories that completely defied the purposes
of the country for less than 50 years, whereafter it attained its freedom through a diplomacy that had stood since the end of the SPanish-American War as a "contract," granting the Philippines its freedom and independence after a set course of time. With this, one can clearly see that we are not imperial in any sense, simply inter-nationalistic and, above all, opportunistic. Now for the "america was in no danger" fallacy. one must understand the standing of our military at the outbreak
sufficient and enclosed market. If you transpose this to America, you can see we do nothing of the sort. We, for one, do not have any countries that are directly under our control, whether that be economically, politically, or militarily. You may argue that we have political or martial presence in these countries, true, but that is for the interest of both our own assets and those of the world. I digress. With the Philippines, our first "colony," you might say. We were only in direct control
orbital sources of income and raw material that the mother country uses for its own personal gain, ONLY receiving these raw goods and NOT finished products. Britain, for example, while occupying India, would not receive textile or "refined" cotton from their colony; instead, they would make the Indians pay to have it shipped to Britain, refined THERE, shipped back to INdia, where it was then made into textiles to be sold throughout the other colonies, providing a safe, and entirely self
we became involved in WW2 was because of strong ties that took over 150 years to form that we still felt towards our "mother country." Now, with this newfound knowledge, we can begin to dissect each of your personal disputes with the war. Let us start with the supposed imperialist policy of America, as you called it, Pine. One must understand the definition of imperialism to understand how it is transposed into international policy: for a country to be an empire, it must have external,
It was not until several years after the War for Independence and after the War of 1812 that the United States realized that we could not simply stand idly in the world, but that we could take on world powers. Therefore, we decided (subliminally, mind you, not in a international policy of the nation at the time), that we, as a nation, would support Great Britain in times of crisis. If you can follow me through my lengthy transgression, one can see as to why ONE, keyword ONE of the reasons
a dangerous and daunting task, especially for a "pubescent nation", if you will. As a result, the United States reiterated the stance of Isolationism, which was an international policy which can be traced back to our Founding Father, George Washington, who wanted nothing to do with international debacles, such as the impressment of U.S. soldiers off of the coast, and the continued disputes between England and France at the time. I must continue to digress, however, to establish my point.
Hello gentlemen. Firstly, I would like to establish myself as a neutral party between you both, simply engaged in a scholarly debate to reveal enlightenment on our different perspectives on international issues. However, I would like to point out the fallacies in both of your arguments. To begin with, the United States as a diplomatic whole was not pressuring for war; we had, after the Spanish-American War of 1898, as well as the takeover of the Philippines in 1900, realized that imperialism was
all the while it is insidiously in an often underhanded beaneath the surface way infiltrating and bending other countries to its will while not holding the best interests of those effected within that other country at heart. Usually and primarily its Americas interets which come first. My problem is with comparing all this to facist Germany and Japan and trying to make out somehow that its all one and the same. It isnt the US has nothing on the truly evil facist German and Japanese war machines.
Your primary pt that America is imperialistic and that it seeks to control much of the globe in accordance with its interests partly by having an exceptionally strong military presence and by meddling in other countries affairs at times in such a way that it results in great suffering to those affected is entirely correct. One of the infuriating things about America is the way it dressed itself up to be the leader of the free world and protector of democracy etc while...
I will not waste more of my time crushing your feeble-minded attempts at rewriting history. You can claim that I am a flag waving, Hollywood adoring idiot all you want, but in the end you're still wrong. Read up on world affairs and go talk to people who have experienced things that you read about. The world might look different then.
@mkcsu27 I am sorry to have offended you. I would not characterize your debate as "crushing".
Actually, I have spent a good deal of time on these events. I see things differently.
I asked you to consider that the "gung-ho" telling of the history of the second world war has several difficulties. In particular, the role that FDR played in it. My contention is that he baited the US into a war that was not our to fight. Thus many Americans died needlessly.
You haven't offended me. I understand that people see things differently, but you seem to have distorted the way Germany and Japan started the war. I am not gung ho about American interventionism- I feel that WWII was a choice between taking the world stage or being relegated to being under Hitler's thumb.
@mkcsu27 My contention is that the present popular narrative is distorted. The winner gets to write the history books.
Once I discovered that FDR personally involved himself in the pacific fleet operations and was doing things that were directly against the advise of one commander (Richardson), who he then fired because he wouldn't shut up and continued over the same objections of his replacement (Kimmel) I took a different view of the start of the war and FDR generally.
I wouldn't say that Americans died needlessly, as the war would have come to our shores (one of the few that could) eventually. Where we screwed up is post-war. Vietnam should never have happened, just like many conflicts since then.
"Gung ho" history isn't always off the mark. There's a difference between a clear recounting of history and the propaganda that we, as citizens, get fed now.
The Roosevelt Corollary was a postulate of foreign policy, in addition to the Monroe Doctrine, authored by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Combined with the big stick policy, the corollary was the mark of a period of direct U.S. control over the Latin American countries.
According to the Monroe Doctrine, enunciated by James Monroe in 1823, the nations of America should, thereafter, be exempted from new European colonization.
The US was already at was with Japan via the Flying Tigers and the B-17 build up in the Philippines. The US had blocked oil to Japan from the East Indies and cut off exports. On Nov 15 1941 Gen Marshall said that he expected to be attacked by Japan "in the first 10 days of Dec."
FDR provoked the attack and deliberately used Pearl as bait over the objections of Kimmel and Short.
He is lying through his teeth in this speech. 300,000 Americans died in WW2 as a result.
@pine829 So, you would rather have had Nazi Germany take over Europe?...Apparently Republicans these days would prefer Hitler to admitting that Democrat ever did anything right.
@violatedchimp The founding fathers of the US warned against entanglements with the imperialist nations of old world Europe - Briton, France, Austria et al. They are nations of eternal war.
At the point the US entered the war in Europe the battle of Briton had already occurred and Hitler had already begun his invasion of Russia which would seal his defeat. At the time the US knew that Germany was finished.
The reason the US entered the war was to take a big slice of pie.
@violatedchimp Had the US not entered the war Hitler and Stalin would have beat each other senseless. Likely, Russia would have prevailed in a weakened condition.
With the US entering the war on the side of the greatest killer in history (Stalin), thereby preventing this beating, we created the conditions that lead to the cold war, a strong Russia.
As a point of fact, I do not care one wit what happens in Europe. They are all unreliable allies and poor friends.
@pine829 The US entering the war did not stop the largest most brutal and destructive land conflict ever from taking place. While the russians emerged from the war a military superower it would be wrong to not acknowledge properly the huge amount of damadge the war did too its country its civilian population many towns and majour cities completely desroyed etc. Rusia lost 20-30 million people in that war and suffered unimaginably.
@MrNixity The point is that the US entered the war largely after it had already been decided. Germany did not have the industrial capacity to replenish material losses, nor the fuel to support logistics. They could not land in Briton because they had no navy at the time and no landing craft. Going east, Germany had to beat both the Russians and the Russian winter. The US knew both of these things. We entered the war to get a slice of the pie. Period. 300,000 Americans died.
@pine829 While it may be true that America entered the war to get a slice of the pie. Its not so simple. Germanys defeat may have been inevitable via Russia. But the outcome of the war and the state of post war Europe was not decided. Would Russia have "liberated" western and central Europe? Or subjugated? Without America D day would not have been possible and the fate of western Europe either way could have been rather dark indeed. The outcome on the western front then was far from decided.
@MrNixity The point is this: the war in Europe was in Europe. It was not the concern of the US. Germany did not present a threat to the US. Period. It would not have mattered if they won the war or if they lost the war. All we did was exchange one brutal dictator for another. As it is we sided with the guy who was the BIGGER killer.
Read your history. D-Day was used as a diversion to take the pressure off of Russia in the east. All it did was get US soldiers killed.
@pine829 Again to simplistic while Germany didnt at the time present a direct threat to the US how does this automatically mean that it therefore would not have mattered to the US if it one or lost the war. And really , thats it? all the us did was exchange one brutal dictator for another? thats the entire pic here? Western europe wasnt liberated and rebuilt culminating in the EU later on. It was hitler who tried to conquer all of europe. Not stalin.
@pine829 No ones pretending Stalin ran an ethicall virtuous regime we know it was evil russia wasnt allied with based on its moral merit it was purely cooperated with so that what was seen as the bigger evil, facist Germany could be defeated. Yes Stalin for years had wanted a second front opened up to take off the pressure in the East but was this D Days only purpose in the end ? Its sole and complete outcome was the death of US soldiers ... i didnt realise D Day took place in a vacume.
@MrNixity I don't mean to insult you, but virtually everyone discusses the tactics of the war. Very few ask the more basic question of "why" in the first place. When you look at this question in detail you are left with the answer that the US entered the war for imperialistic and economic reasons...that is to take a slice of the pie after a victory.
Making money is a crappy reason to ask a kid to give his life.
The US does not owe the world a policeman or a messiah.
@pine829 I think you will find most historiens look at the whys and causes of war in considerable depth vs tactics. Look im not disagreeing wih you you have and are making a good point. I just find it a to one dimentional and simplistic way of viewing Americas role within world war 2 which was after all a "world war". Im not American and am incredibly cyncal about the role America has played in the post world war 2 world order. Hence the concept of America as policeman and messiah is alien to me
@MrNixity One of the big myths of WW2 is that there were defensive needs of the US in WW2. This is false. The US was in no danger. Germany had no physical way of accomplishing it. Moreover, we knew it at the time. Thus, the next obvious question is why did we do it?
This is the more interesting question. I believe that the answer to this is the desire to create an American Empire...something that continues in an accelerating fashion today.
@pine829 If you wish to define defensive needs as simply menaing that the USAs territorial sovereignty was not especially threatened ie they were not in any danger of being invaded and conquered then your essentialy correct. I wouldnt define it so narrowly.
@MrNixity Narrow definition -That is precisely the problem we have gotten ourselves into. We no longer wage war for the purpose of defending our sovereign territory. Rather, we now wage war for nebulously defined "interests". Further, we have allowed the Presidency to assume the near dictatorial ability to wage war without the Constitutional requirement of a declaration by Congress.
We have become exactly what the Founders despised, an imperialistic nation of perpetual war.
@pine829 I agree here. My point is simply that japan and germany had to be defeated. To have large section of the globe locked down under facist regimes was never going to be ideologically aceptable to the US or Britain. Idelogical motives played a big role. It would have created an intolerable set of global conditions and a german contolled europe would have pretty much locked the us out of europe and japan would have locked the us out of asia. This left the US potentially very isolated.
@MrNixity Why do you say "had to be defeated". The present US is a Fascist state with a more far reaching empire than that contemplated by Germany. Is it that you don't like the idea of Fascism or that you don't like it when others do it. Do you not see that we are dealing with countries that were having wars in Africa and other places far from Europe...do you not ever ask how they got this land to fight over in the beginning?
Take a good look at the Lincoln Memorial. Lincoln is sitting with his hands on 2 fasces....a bundle of sticks that symbolize a strong state. It was one of the symbols of Rome and their state. Many other Europeans as well. This same symbol is on our currency...Mercury and Roosevelt dime. This notion of a strong central state is exactly opposite of the intention of the founders of this nation and directly in opposition to the Constitution. Foreign wars are not our problem,
The US has military influence and military bases throughout the world. We ring the globe with our ability to kill and destroy. We regularly provoke wars, install and then prop up dictators, meddle in foreign government, provide military help and material to despots, suppress democracy, steal resources and pollute foreign lands.
Is it that you don't like the concept of military imperialism itself or just a challenge to our own.
@pine829 To say the USA is far worse then Germany ever hoped to be is an insensitive insult to the 6 million Jews gassed in chambers during world war 2 and to all the people who were massacred raped and systematically shot by the German fascist war machine which had absolutely no regard for human life. Its an insult to the 30 million or so people who lost their lives on the eastern front. The German regime was truly evil.
@MrNixity You miss my point. You said that Germany wanted to take over the world. I am pointing out to you the the US has effectively accomplished this today. To wit: the US effectively controls North America both economically and militarily, pushes around the Europeans like cattle, has a commanding military presence in the Middle East militarily having invaded 2 countries so far and working on a third and props up several brutal regimes that are friendly to us like Saudi Arabia.
@MrNixity I was in no way defending Germany or their actions. What I am attempting to get you to think about is whether you are against empire building a point of principle, or whether you just don't like it when a guy you don't like is doing it.
The aims of Germany were no different from those of the British, French, Russian, Austrian, Byzantine, Roman, American or Mongol empires.
The problem is the desire to create these empires at all, not who's doing it.
@pine829 while an interesting paper can no doubt be written alluding to the similarities between fascism and modern America, its ultimately not fascist and fascist states do not change governments through an open electoral system (spin and lies propounded through the media aside). If you had lived under the Nazi regime i am confident you would appreciate more some of the differences ... similarities aside.
@MrNixity Do you believe that one day the whole of Germany or Italy or any other country that has gone down this path woke up one morning and said "Yup, today I want to be Fascist"?
On the contrary, this was reached by a process of incremental solidification of central authority.
Do you not see the parallels between the "enabling acts" and the Patriot Act and its following legislation?"
Does it bother you that the President has usurped the Congressional ability to declare war
The bigger question is whether or not the herd of frogs in the bucket ever know they're being boiled, or do they just keep waving the flag, talking about the good old days in WW2 and singing patriotic songs.
The question is not whether you or I would have recognized Nazi Germany in the end days, but whether or not we would have recognized it when it started. After all, who wouldn't want a strong America, or safety from terror.
@pine829 You are completely wrong man..But as someone said " there is stupid people everywhere , and now hidden on youtube"...you are twisting huge historical events...Probably just to caught attention ...
@pine829 But i agree with you in that Amerca did its best to postion itself so that after the war the world would run more or less according to its interests. It did that very well. Of course all countries scramble to get the best outcome for their own interests. Russia not being any different here insofar as it tried to get the best postwar deal outcome it could.
@pine829 ie America was very keen to dismatel the british and frensh colonial empires after the war (as it was in accordance with their interests). And the next time britain tried to exercise a bit of global clout ie at Suez it got smaked into line by the US very quickly.
@MrNixity I agree with this. One of the things that bothers me about this is that empires almost always fail when they become over extended. I believe that we are over extended economically and militarily The US does not have enough money, might or guns to deal with the totality of the potential challenges it faces. We would find that in the face of hard times that many of our old friends, particularly the Europeans, would throw us under the bus.
@MrNixity What was happening in Europe at that time was not the concern of the US. Europe is composed of countries that were at perpetual war with each other. The most imperialistic states ever to exist, with the present exception of the US, were Briton, France, Austria, Spain, Russia and a host of lesser players. None posed a direct threat to the US. It was not our war. Whoever won would have made a good trading partner. As it was, we sided with Stalin, the biggest murderer ever.
@pine829 To simplistic. Having a nazi controlled European continent would hardly have been good for America. Hitler partly instigated the war as he forsaw Americas rise and for Europe to remain a great power he thought a unified nazi controlled continent harnasing russias resources was the only option. A nazi or russian controlled Europe would not have just made a good trading partner ie was the USSR just a good trading partner for the US? Whoever one would have been oppositional to the US.
@MrNixity WW2 is the direct result of the Treaty of Versailles. The crushing provisions of this were what enabled Hitler's rise. (The last payment of this treaty was Oct 3 2010...92 years).
No one knows what might have happened. You could just as well make the argument that a strong winning Germany might have prevented the entire cold war by providing a Continental balance to Russia.
@pine829 Stalin is undoubtably one of the very biggest murderers ever
(in terms of pure numbers) mao is competative too. But unlike Hitler the USSR had not untill opportunity presented itself after the war been aggresively expansional and recklessly declared war everywhere. It was rather internally focsed comparatively speaking. The russians were as appauled as the west when they saw the eastern death camps of Germany. Hitler was someone who had to be defeated.
@MrNixity The US sided with both Russia and China in WW2. We knew their character before we signed on. What has always bothered my about this whole subject is the notion that there were good guys and bad guys in this. They were all bad guys...including the US. The US participated in terrorist "area bombing" as well as being the first to use a nuclear weapon.
What I do know is that neither Germany or Russia had the ability to invade the US at the time.. They still don't.
@pine829 Again its to simplistic. I agree in worldwar 2 all sides did things which were wrong and bad. The carpet bombing of cities was just plain horrific ... essentialy massacering civilians to grind the other side down. But to go from saying there were bad guys and good guys to they are all the same just bad guys is also wrong. It was germany and japan who were invading other countries and embarking on ruthless brital conquest.
Terrorist area bombing? Nuclear weapons? I consider anything that prevented the war from dragging on any longer to be excusable. While the U.S.'s role in Europe might be more debatable, our role in the Pacific was not. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and undertook a wide-ranging offensive across the Pacific. Japan massacred civilians in a most barbaric manner, especially in China. They got what they had coming to them.
@mkcsu27 The fact is that the US baited Japan into attacking. WE wanted the war. Let's get the history right.
There are bad guys all over the world. No where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that ridding the world of bad guys is a required act.
One of the things that drives me crazy is that we have devolved from country of enlightened independents forming a Constitutional Republic into a New-Rome of blood-thirsty pirates looking for the next source of booty.
@mkcsu27 The fact is that the US baited Japan into attacking. WE wanted the war. Let's get the history right.
There are bad guys all over the world. No where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that ridding the world of bad guys is a required act.
One of the things that drives me crazy is that we have devolved from country of enlightened independents forming a Constitutional Republic into a New-Rome of blood-thirsty pirates looking for the next source of booty.
@mkcsu27 The fact is that the US baited Japan into attacking. WE wanted the war. Let's get the history right.
There are bad guys all over the world. No where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that ridding the world of bad guys is a required act.
One of the things that drives me crazy is that we have devolved from country of enlightened independents forming a Constitutional Republic into a New-Rome of blood-thirsty pirates looking for the next source of booty.
@mkcsu27 The fact is that the US baited Japan into attacking. WE wanted the war. Let's get the history right.
There are bad guys all over the world. No where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that ridding the world of bad guys is a required act.
One of the things that drives me crazy is that we have devolved from country of enlightened independents forming a Constitutional Republic into a New-Rome of blood-thirsty pirates looking for the next source of booty.
@mkcsu27 For me, the nuclear bombing of Japan is a particular problem. The Japanese were already beaten. A simple naval blockade could have prevented any further hostile act literally forever.
Rather, we realized what kind of person we were dealing with in Stalin...and he was already half way across Europe. He very well might have been able to continue all the way to Spain.
I believe that we dropped the A-Bomb on Japan to intimidate Stalin, not the Japanese.
For me, being someone who's grandparents had to undergo Japanese occupation, I have no problem with the nuking. You forget what kind of people the Japanese were in 1945. They were vicious and brutal. Just look at the Rape of Nanking. They got what they deserved. And if we didn't side with Stalin, then the war would have ended even more badly than it did.
Besides, strategic bombing, as it is properly called, is not a terrorist tactic. It is a legitimate tool of war that also happens to have tragic effects. In the case of Japan and Germany, bombing helped shorten the duration of the war, which in my book, is worth it. Remember, if Japan and Germany didn't start it, then they wouldn't have brought down the inevitable wrath of everyone they attacked.
@mkcsu27 Call it whatever you wish, it IS a terrorist act because the purpose of it is to incite "terror" into a population rather than decrease the military or industrial material available to a war effort.
The US and Britain used it in Germany in a nearly one sided fashion in Europe. This is largely because the Germans were no good at it comparatively.
In Japan, it was even more lop-sided.
It shortened the war in calender time, but at the expense of a higher body count.
No, the idea is to break the enemy's will while crushing industrial capability. Why do you think the U.S. targeted industrial sites like the Ruhr Valley, Schweinfurt, etc?
Do you just decide to ignore the Blitz and the Battle of Britain? And in the case of Germany, they shifted targets from military and industrial targets TO civilian population centers. Explain that, will you?
@mkcsu27 "...enemy's will....". Correct, by creating terror. Have you forgotten Dresden or Tokyo? I understand the tactic and the reasons for it. Where we part company is that I don't see one side wearing white hat and one side wearing black hats. Both sides used terrorist tactics.
Moreover, The was no threat to the US posed by Germany. We had no need to enter the war for defensive reasons. We did so for financial, political and imperialistic reasons.
Terrorist tactics? You definitely don't know where to draw the line then. You seem to be awfully intent on saying that the Allies were equally guilty as the Axis.
And you claim that Germany posed no threat to the U.S.- that's fine if you take an ignorant, interventionist viewpoint. If Japan and Germany had ended up ruling Asia and Europe, then the United States would have been shut out of the world and been forced to capitulate to their demands eventually
Japan conducted strategic bombing of Chongqing, China until 1943. Not to mention bombings of countless other cities. Lop sided? Hell yes, the Chinese never touched Japanese soil.
You, unfortunately, are a historical revisionist who twists and bends historical events while ignoring facts to fit a viewpoint. Please go read a little bit, especially sources from the period. WWII was an unfortunate event, but do remember that Germany and Japan initiated hostilities.
@mkcsu27 I ask you to put down the flag and try to forget all of the John Wayne war movies you've seen and re-look at the history with a slightly different perspective.
First, look at WW2 as simply a continuation of WW1. Specifically look at the effect of the treaty of Versailles and what it did to the Germans.
Second, look at the state of the German army at the entry point of the US.
Third, look at actions of FDR to the Japanese in the 2 years before Dec 7 1941
@pine829 John Wayne movies? No, I speak as an American who had grandparents under Japanese occupation. I have a far clearer view of history as I do not twist and contort facts to match a fantasy agenda.
The Versaille Treaty was flawed and unfair. Get over it, as it doesn't give the Germans the right to murder 12 million Jews, Gypsies, communists, and other "undesirables." It doesn't give them the right to start a war of conquest in which millions of European civilians were murdered.
@mkcsu27 Of course they had no "right". That is not the issue. The issue is why should the United States get involved with other peoples wars?
You recoil in horror at the deaths of Jews and Gypsies, but you seem perfectly willing to excuse the murder of tens of millions by your ally Stalin...who by the way was a murderer BEFORE we cuddled up with him.
Admit it, it is not killing that bothers you, it is only that you want to pick who gets killed.
I suggest you look at FDR's actions in the time preceding Dec 7 1941. What you will find is that he poked Japan in the eye with the intention of getting into that war. FDR manipulated the US navy such that the fleet at Pearl was "bait". He did this over the strong objections of several different fleet commanders. It was clearly deliberate.
I object to the President of the US using those lives as pawns in that fashion on principle.
The German Army? Are you kidding me? Albert Speer wanted to ramp up production dramatically. The Germany economy moved from a peacetime one shift system to three shifts. Why do you think they managed to increase production during the bombing? The Germans were trying to win their expansionary war.
"Look at the actions of FDR..." This proves you are an idiot. If you don't object to the Japanese conquest of China, then you have no moral standing at all.
@mkcsu27 I am not attempting to justify the actions of the Japanese. What I am saying is that the US had no threat from Japan. Had we not aided the European war effort with lend-lease, cut off Japanese oil, flown air campaigns against them with the Flying Tigers, built up a B-17 bombing capacity in the Philippines and sailed warships into their waters, they would not have retaliated.
It was not our war and we should have stayed out of it.
@mkcsu27 I do object to the Japanese conquest of China...philosophically. My morals are such that I do not believe in killing my citizens to prevent it. In the same way, I object to the terrible killing that has occurred at the hands of various Chinese leaders on its own citizens. For example the "Great Leap Forward" likely killed more than 40 million from '58 to '62.
I do not know if more or less would have died had Japan been successful in their conquest.
What I do know is that less Americans would have died.
You see, the issue with Japan/China is that our enabling a Chinese "victory" may have cost more total lives in the long run.
From a purely selfish view, I am not sure that China is not a worse long term threat to the US than an Imperial Japan. The US may have been better off militarily to let Japan subdue China. In 20 years we will know the answer to this.
@pine829 Enabling a chinese victory? You mean enabling china to rid itself of a murderous bloodthirsty power hungry bunch of inhuman japanese militeristic maniacs who subjected the chinese civilian population to unimaginable acts of dgredation humiliation and appauling atrocities? Enabling it to retain its territorial sovreignty and for better or worse to be a country with its own destiny. The japanese saw the chinese as being little better than cockroaches and treated them as such.
@MrNixity For all your words, it resulted in a Chinese victory it would not have had otherwise. This likely lowered the immediate Chinese body count. However, this then led to the rise of Mao which then led to "The Great Leap Forward" in '58-'62. This then lead to at least 40 million dead...about the same body count as the entire war dead in WW2 for both sides. Regardless of the treatment of the Japanese the Mao body count is higher and the atrocities the same.
@pine829 What is the pt in bringing in such a hypothetical? The fact remains it was japan who posed a direct threat to the territorial sovreignty of the bulk of Asia. It was japan who in actuality rather than in the vague realm of the hypotheticals invaded china and south east asia commiting unimaginable acts of cruelty on a routine basis. They were racist treated people like roaches and were unimaginably crule in their treatment of the conquered. Such extreme facism is not exceptable.
@MrNixity and is by its very nature a threat to any meaningful global peace stability an security. Its inherantly expansionist agressive and violent , the japanese actually did pose a direct threat to the sovreign territorial integrity of say Australia as well. You say America is the same? There are degrees and a cursary glance at the facts hammers home the fact that we are not comparing like with like.
@MrNixity iraq and vietnam does not equal the scale of the horror of world war 2 and the evil nature of and acts of the japanese facist war macine with no regard for human life. Having military bases around the globe and flexing ones muscle does not equate to the atrocities enacted by the facist war machines. A desire to influence meddle in and and control other countries affairs for economic and geopolitical reasons does not compare again to the horrific facist war macine.
@MrNixity machine. Trying to dominate much of the globe through the means America has used is not comparable still to the rape massacres ethnic cleansing and all out annihalative measures employed by facism. Invading countries and controlling continents in the manner that germany and japan did is worse then the ways in which the us exerts its power and control. Again im not American and am highly critical of the way America acts on the world stage.
@MrNixity Your right to be as critical as you are of the behaviour of post war imperialistic America. Where your going wrong is with your one dimentional thought and desire to subsume all historical events into your revisionistic nexus. You say your critical of the gung ho hist of world war 2. Maybe the prob was with what u read or with the way they present hist in America. But as far as im aware of most considered histories of world war 2 do not paint this simplistic black and whit pic that you
@MrNixity purport to be so critical of. In fact im wonderingf if you havent just set up a straw man for yourself here. Most of the histories critically look at the whys and they dont ignore the fact its a war, its bloody messy and both sides do things which are wrong and morally questionable to say the least. The allies do not escape a fair degree of condemnation or criticism. But any level headed non revisionist assesment concludes that it was Germany Japan who behaved all the more appaulingly.
@MrNixity 50's, '60's Movie actor, always played the white hat cowboy, jungle explorer, oil well driller or WW2 army sergeant. He could carry 3 wounded men from a foxhole under enemy fire, beat 12 men in a bar fight, shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand, drink a bottle of whiskey, catch the cheater at Poker and then get the girl all in the same evening.
@pine829 Your embarassing yourself ... such childish misplaced metaphores do nothing but detract from the strength of your argument. Debate me on what i say... unless your getting frustrated and running out of things to say.
@MrNixity Am I missing something? I meant you no offense. You said you didn't know who John Wayne was. I took this as a sincere question. He was a movie actor who played essentially the same character no matter what the subject of the movie.
The last line was not a reference to you personally, but I meant it as a general explanation of what he was to the post WW2 average American. He was the hero that every little boy wanted to be.
@MrNixity I guess that depends which side of the "intervention" or bomb sight you are on. The fact is that the US is in the habit of propping up brutal dictators worldwide (Saddam, Mubarak, Pol Pot, Marcos, Pinochet, Somoza and so on) and invading countries for profit (Iraq, Guatemala, Afghanistan and so on). Millions have died as a direct result of these intervention. This is not just "flexing muscle". Do yourself a favor and look up the number dead from our dictators and wars
@MrNixity Pol Pot was supported by the US as part of its "intervention" with Viet Nam/Cambodia. Rather than recite the whole story here, I found a halfway decent synopsis on the web that pretty well covers it. If you Google the following, you will find a PDF document
"The Long Secret Alliance by John Pilger"
John Pilger is an Australian documentary film producer.
This document cites many sources. Several of these will carry you to other decent news/commentary/description.
@MrNixity Where I come from, we have a saying: "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
If you look at both the "good" and "bad" guys, you must conclude that their goals are essentially the same, their methods are essentially the same and the collateral damage is the same. To the victims, the only difference seems to be the color of the flag, the cut of the uniform and the political promises they don't live to see.
@pine829 How about we drop the good guys and bad gys rehetoric and call them all bad guys. Still there are degrees of badness and i maintain that the evil facist war machine was MORE bad then America and say Britain during the war. Germany wished to control Europe through all out total war and on the Eastern front annihalation. It was a war of annihalation. The scal of the atrocities the sheer scale of it all and COMPLETE disregegard at all for human life is beyond comprhension.
@MrNixity I'm all for dropping all the "good guy/bad guy" stuff. They are the same, but different.
Is there really any difference between the 2 sides? They bombed, we bombed. They killed civilians, we killed civilians. They killed POW's, we killed POW's. They wanted more land, we wanted more land...and the Brits, Russians and French were bigger and more long lasting empires to boot.
The countries/land conquered by these would tell a different story.
@pine829 The goal of the US was not to conquer indefinitely and in totality a completre continent. The methods they use today arenot the same. They are and they are not of course the US has invaded ther countries atrocities have been commited and they at times act with little regard to the welfare of citizens in other countries. This is all very wrong and bad. But it dosent mach the pure evil of the facist german war machine or the atrocities it commited.
@MrNixity Really? Have we militarily left Europe? Have we stopped installing dictators in central america, asia and the middle east? Have we stopped promoting wars that result in our profit? Seems to me that we have 2 of them going on right now and that we're working on a third. i expect that any day now we or our partner in crime, Israel, will be invading Iran.
@pine829 Not that you will, but would you please read "Moral Combat" by Michael Burleigh, start to finish? I surmise that you won't because folks like you always take the easiest way out in life, comfortably equivocating all things difficult because you never will once stand up for anything. You remove INTENT from the political argument, and then pat your own spineless back as morally superior. Immerse yourself in that book and you just might grow a bit.
@networkdeath I will. Please temper your insults, you do not know me. I have seen such death personally.
Do you believe that "morality" is judged on words or stated intention or do you believe that "morality" is established by results? Or is it based on something else completely different.
For example, we have killed several million Iraqi, a large percentage who were children, based on "words" that ended up being lies.
What I see, time and again is that the "winner" in a war judges themselves by their rhetoric. Morality degenerates into rationalization that there was only a single course of action that was thrust upon them thereby creating an imperative. The results of this action is then blamed entirely on the vanquished. This is intellectually sloppy and had within it the seeds to repeat the process.
The "spine" you talk about is the backbone to look at the whole truth, and yourself.
@pine829 The US has not sought the extermination of entire races of people through gas chambers. The Germans also soght to exterminate and bring into complete slavery all the slavic people. Perhaps it is all about degrees. The facist movement allowed NO dissent at all no freedoms and so peple were shot with no second thought both within and without Germany. The US allows more freedoms certainly within America then fdacist Germany did the regime of the US is not as evil though it is pretty bad.
@MrNixity With all respect, the US engaged in terrorist bombing of a civilian population in Germany and Japan, starved the German army after the war, dropped several atomic weapons on a civilian population.
Since that war, the US has supported dictators literally all over the planet including Pol Pot, Batista, Chiang Kai-shek, Somoza, Pinnochet, Saddam, the Shah of Iran, starved a million Iraqi children as part of an embargo and many others.
@MrNixity No. It was a second comment to "networkdeath".
For whatever reason a comment that I appended to my own comment to another ended up to you. It showed up right when I first posted it, but it has changed.
@pine829 i don't recall arguing ever that the US is morally virtuous all i have ever maintained is that the US regime is not AS EVIL as the German fascist regime.
I think a problem your getting yourself into is byt trying to reduce morality to a mathematically ll important statistic ie how many lives were lost i guess a quasi utilitarian position. But geopolitics war and morality the rights and wrongs cannot be seen clearly through such a statistic. Morality right and wrong good and bad cannot be sytemically asessed in any meaningful way on a geopolitical level with such a mindset.
@MrNixity For one thing the world was in a positin to dismantel facism in Europe but was not in any real sense in a position to dismantel communism in Russia. For another facism was externaly agressive and acted appaulingly towardss other countries in a way that cannot really be said abut Rusia.
@MrNixity Is there any meaning to say that 6 million jews died 30 million slaves on the eastern front etc etc etc vs 30 million in the gulags or whatever and whoever edges with the bigger number has the geopolitical moral deficit. I for one see little to no pt in assesing something as complex and multifacted as world war to through such base thinking.
@MrNixity Of course im not suggesting that the statistic how many lives lost is not important as clearly it is its very important and a key moral utilitarian pt. But im saying morality in the real worls is complex it does not occur in an ideal vacume. Trying to critique complex historical events and movements through such basic moral thought is what is the problem here. Maybe you should take a course in applied ethics as applied to historical events.
@MrNixity Also while the US hleped Russia defeat Germany its not really entirly fair to say that they sided with the biggest killer. Helping russia defeat germany does not amount to condoning the nature of the russian regime. Maybe its just semantics but helped to defeat facism not sided with the biggest killer is a more apt phrase. After all America and Russia immediatly assumed an hostile stance to one another after the war. Suggests the alliance was a little flaky.
@MrNixity Well it really is just semantics of you are honest. In the end you either help or don't help a government and then you either get more or less of what they're doing. What I find troubling is when the help we give is good for us, but bad for the people who actually live there. Iran is a perfect example. By installing the Shah (good for our interests, bad for the Iranian people) we create the conditions that resulted in the theocracy we find so troubling now.
@MrNixity I guess that this also depends on which side of the statistic you're on. The basic issue I have with the "moral" argument is that I don't see a statistical difference between when the "good guys" win and when the "bad guys" win. For example, when the US inserted itself into Guatemala in the '50's, the "good guys" got cheap bananas and a whole lot of Guatemalans got dead and poorer. Same deal with Iraq. Same deal with Iran and the Shah, Same deal in East Timor.
@pine829 On V... lets not forget again that it was basically the Germans who were the agressors during world war 1. The atrocities the German army committed as they moved through western Europe ie belgium should not be forgotten. The Germans army shoul have been obliterated by the allies but was not mistakenly it was allowed to return in surrender to Germany. The allies one of course they were going to impose strict conditions on Germany. But before going poor Germany dont forget what they did.
@violatedchimp I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. Both are equally, but uniquely, corrupt.
The Democrats, when they are able, are destroying the country with a long slow slide into socialism and moral decay. A huge State teat that nurses sloth, ignorance and evil.
The Republicans are the home of corporate and military corruption. We now openly wage war and kill for the padding of balance sheets. Our young men are dying for rich old men. Evil cowards all.
@violatedchimp One of the issues I have with this speech is that it is a lie.
FDR baited Japan into an attack. Technically, because the US Flying Tigers were already flying missions against Japan we were already at war. We were also building up a huge B-17 presence in the Philippines. The Japanese knew this. We had already cut off their imported oil....an act of war.
Kimmel and Short warned FDR that they were sitting ducks. By FDR's own orders the bait was set.
Fuck FDR, this asshole was one of the worst presidents in history. He aggressively expanded the office of the presidency well beyond its constitutional limits. He began the whole "big government" thinking that still pervades our political culture. Asshole and he was a fucking moron to boot.
@MaiLingDolly In times of Crisis, i see nothing wrong with increasing the power of the leadership. The Romans did it quite effectively. He didn't seek to make a big government, it was up to later leaders to further corrupt that. I give him credit for successfully leading the USA through a major war and guiding them to become the Superpower it is today.
@MadMilitiaMen I do respect your opinion, FDR was certainly popular for many Americans. I do see a big problem with increasing the power of leadership, James Madison never envisioned the executive power usurping the Supreme Court or legislature as he did. Also, the outcome of WWII was never in doubt, our industrial might at that time guaranteed victory, FDR or any other President could have guided us to victory.
@MaiLingDolly A large power is indeed not an effective form or leadership. However, i do believe that it is a needed evil in times of crisis to be reduced at the conclusion. Also while it is true that America would have won the war, FDR's lendlease and other plans did much to shorten the war prior to our entry. Other presidents could have guided us to victory, but i truly believe none would have done it as well as him.
@MadMilitiaMen Good points about the lend lease! I've always favored Taft as one of my favorite presidents. He is not often mentioned as one of the greats but I like the fact that he was not an "active" president and preferred to let congress have preeminence in government. As Jefferson said "I am no fan of energetic government", which makes me a "radical" I guess in today's times! lol
@MaiLingDolly FDR may have been one of the worst US Presidents, but since ~1900 they all have been bad. Since about this time the US turned into an imperialist state just like Briton, France, Russia, Austria....all the way to old Rome. The US became a de facto Fascist state then. I say this because the actual differences between the various political parties is small. They all believe in a strong state...exactly opposite of the founders of this country. This is accelerating.
"Nevermind I was the one who pissed off the Japanese instead of staying nuetral as the American people wished...Nevermind it is I who is at fault for the death of those young boys...No, it was suddenly and deliberately attacked..."
This is why I never vote Democrat.
Believe the Liberal's lies if you want, FDR was one of the worst presidents we ever had.
That's because of all these "Wonderful Democrat presidents" that we owe so much money. FDR didn't completely get us out of the Great Depression.It took WWII to get us out.WE actually had a balanced budget under Nixon.This clown we have now had better not get re-elected or we're toast.I never thought there could be a poorer excuse for a president than Carter but we have one now who's worse than him.The sooner this clown leaves office w/the 'royal' Madam Mao Michelle & Valerie Jarrett the better!
@Koi880 Finest? Like FDR, who dragged America into WWII, who interred hundreds of innocent Americans? Like Jackson, who removed the Native Americans? Like Wilson, who dragged America into WWI? Like Johnson, who dragged America into Viet Nam? Like Truman, who dropped the bombs, then made them grow deadlier and deadlier before dragging America into Korea, where he fied war hero General MacArthur?
@MadMilitiaMen shut up about Moncho1234! hes not a troll ur a troll! u have been trolling! u were born a troll! do us all a favor and stop posting stupid comments!!!!!
Alot of dumb folks here in the comments. But to add to jmwvideoman22, thats of course not were he is referring to. He is referring to the economic sanctions usa placed on Japan. And also referring to the black fleet entering Japanese territory 80 years earlier. But Americans have the tendency to forget their abuses and unrightful actions. Still its a good thing they teached the Japanese a lessn
Can someone help me find where Franklin D. Roosevelt said "Hitler built a fortress around Europe, but he forgot to put a roof on it" i need the year speech or document i have looking for a long time just need some help thanks!
kookopandamn 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pine829 you are a antipatriot and you should go back to whatever hippy, European country you came from.
Bwag35 1 week ago
Comment removed
Bwag35 1 week ago
I'm watching this to learn how FDR talked cause I'm FDR in Annie.
Bwag35 1 week ago
If you are watching this video, you are one of the few intellectual beings left on this Earth, have a love of history or you were playing Call of Duty: World at War.
awesomeryde 1 week ago 2
@awesomeryde Mine would be "a love of history" lol
historyman9 1 week ago
2:01 to 2:16. That piece of shit Obama would never have the guts to say something like that.
Rockyfan10060 1 week ago
Comment removed
mohican19831 1 week ago
@Rockyfan10060 o and bush would
have ?
mohican19831 1 week ago
No he probably wouldn't because they're both cowards. Don't try and use political orientation because it has nothing to do with that.
Rockyfan10060 1 week ago
@Rockyfan10060 WHATEVER
mohican19831 1 week ago
What, are you mad that I just answered your question?
Rockyfan10060 1 week ago
@Rockyfan10060 SOUND LIKE YOUR GETTIN A LIL PARANOID THERE
mohican19831 1 week ago
Nah, it's all good. No worries.
Rockyfan10060 1 week ago
George Washington , John Adams, Abraham Lincoln , FDR.... this country was ordained from our creation, with great leaders... This speech was magnificent. England , Europe and the world needed a savior and he was provided on Dec 8th 1941.
TheaterTori 2 weeks ago
sorry for the lengthy response, but please read all of it! it will be truly enlightening for both sides
Navymav 2 weeks ago
@Navymav thanks for the responce yes i think the whole supporting the mother country Britain is a big part of why the US became involved US and Britain are always natural allies just look at what happened with Iraq. I agree dropping the atomic bomb can be seen as being a quick end to what would have otherwise been a very long horrific protracted nightmare in trying to conquer the japanese mainland with as you say pretty much the japanese would have defended it to the last man woman and child.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@Navymav Read all, and glad I did too, thanks!
chaseybears 1 week ago
refuting all opposition who attack this Great Nation as a whole. I do accept and appreciate contsructive criticism, and it is welcome. I hope that my humble assortment of knowledge will suffice in helping both of you, Pine and MrNixity, understand the true reasons that lie behind the Conflict of WW2. Seriously, Read Pearl Harbor; it gives great insight to the years, months, and moments that led and built up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and US involvment in WW2.
Navymav 2 weeks ago
I have never actually responded to a comment on Youtube before. I will say in cooperation with you both that the U.S. DID indeed carry itself in a rather self-centered manner after the conclusion the War, what with the ultimate power of the Security Council of The UN, and so-on, but that is another debate. THis one focused upon the Declaration OF War that entered the US into a 4 year conflict around the world, and I am a patriotic American who will stand by my President, no matter the situation
Navymav 2 weeks ago
from an omnipotent point of view. Roosevelt was not trying to enter the war, but rather circumvent it through politics and support of others. However, this was foiled because of hasty action by some of his cabinet, who, through diplomatic fopas, succeeded in the accidental provocation of the Empire of Japan into full out war (for more detail regarding this, read Pearl Harbor: FDR Leads the Nation INto War by Steven M. Gillon). This is a much longer response than is permitted, and
Navymav 2 weeks ago
rather than surrender to an INVADING force. This combined with the calculated statistics that you love so much, Pine, coagulate into the solution that Wilson came up with: to use his brain and save the world trouble, rather than adding to it. Now, this entire week-long+ debate has been about the validity of the speech itself. I think with all of the irrefutable evidence listed in above essay response, one can begin to see only SOME of the big picture of what was REALLy going on
Navymav 2 weeks ago
Two, you have the humanitarian viewpoint, arguing that, perhaps, a war of attrition and diplomatic negotiations would have been sufficient. THis is where the Human "x-factor" comes in: the japanese are a very ordered and structured people, still are; at the time, they would teach the children a song that said "oh emperor, my emperor, let me bleed at your feet." this mentality fortifies the position that, in fact, the japanese people would have literally fought to the last man, woman, and child,
Navymav 2 weeks ago
and to look at simple numbers. However, that human "x-factor" can never be completely taken out. Take the dropping of the atomic bomb, for example. That could be perceived both ways: One, you have a calculated decision by Woodrow Wilson, that instead of risking the projected loss of another 1-2 million american lives, plus countless native Japanese, and extending the war another possible 1-2 years, he decided to use a strategic advantage, and cut the losses for both sides;
Navymav 2 weeks ago
Instead, he fell back on the age-old subliminal agreement that we would support our MOther country, Britain, and so he proceeded to send them vital supplies, seeing as how the best way to keep us OUT of the war, was to keep Britain IN the war. Now, pine, you proceeded to focus and comment on some of the technological aspects of the war, and on statistics rather than human morals. I commend you on this, seeing as how it is very hard to detach oneself from a very emotional topic
Navymav 2 weeks ago
to believe that the United States did indeed have something to be worried about, seeing as how our standing army was no less than 180,000 as of 1937, and was ranked 18 in the world at the time. Roosevelt understood this, and the continually deteriorating situation in Europe, and, although he was a staunch Internationalist, he was NOT directly attempting to draw America into the war; he even knew that he first needed american support for a military spool-up to be able to wage a two front war.
Navymav 2 weeks ago
of the weak and fragile League of Nations and the appeasement deal brought about between British prime minister Chamberlain and Hitler to "have piece in our time," where as CHurchill saw it for the truth, that we simply "had defeat without war." The awesome power of the German military, coupled with the fierce and brutal forces of Japan that also had been training and honing their skills in the takeover of Machuria, the press on Burma, and the takeover of French Indochina, would leave me
Navymav 2 weeks ago
of the war: we were using outdated machinery and gear, equipping our soldiers with, literally, rusting cantines and 50 year old rifles. This opposed to the refined fighting forces of the German Wermacht, who had been battle-hardened by over 8 years of fighting in the "Liebensreilm" mentality, with Hitler taking over the Rhineland, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and "anschluss" agreement between Germany and Austria, and countless other European victories that completely defied the purposes
Navymav 2 weeks ago
of the country for less than 50 years, whereafter it attained its freedom through a diplomacy that had stood since the end of the SPanish-American War as a "contract," granting the Philippines its freedom and independence after a set course of time. With this, one can clearly see that we are not imperial in any sense, simply inter-nationalistic and, above all, opportunistic. Now for the "america was in no danger" fallacy. one must understand the standing of our military at the outbreak
Navymav 2 weeks ago
sufficient and enclosed market. If you transpose this to America, you can see we do nothing of the sort. We, for one, do not have any countries that are directly under our control, whether that be economically, politically, or militarily. You may argue that we have political or martial presence in these countries, true, but that is for the interest of both our own assets and those of the world. I digress. With the Philippines, our first "colony," you might say. We were only in direct control
Navymav 2 weeks ago
orbital sources of income and raw material that the mother country uses for its own personal gain, ONLY receiving these raw goods and NOT finished products. Britain, for example, while occupying India, would not receive textile or "refined" cotton from their colony; instead, they would make the Indians pay to have it shipped to Britain, refined THERE, shipped back to INdia, where it was then made into textiles to be sold throughout the other colonies, providing a safe, and entirely self
Navymav 2 weeks ago
we became involved in WW2 was because of strong ties that took over 150 years to form that we still felt towards our "mother country." Now, with this newfound knowledge, we can begin to dissect each of your personal disputes with the war. Let us start with the supposed imperialist policy of America, as you called it, Pine. One must understand the definition of imperialism to understand how it is transposed into international policy: for a country to be an empire, it must have external,
Navymav 2 weeks ago
It was not until several years after the War for Independence and after the War of 1812 that the United States realized that we could not simply stand idly in the world, but that we could take on world powers. Therefore, we decided (subliminally, mind you, not in a international policy of the nation at the time), that we, as a nation, would support Great Britain in times of crisis. If you can follow me through my lengthy transgression, one can see as to why ONE, keyword ONE of the reasons
Navymav 2 weeks ago
a dangerous and daunting task, especially for a "pubescent nation", if you will. As a result, the United States reiterated the stance of Isolationism, which was an international policy which can be traced back to our Founding Father, George Washington, who wanted nothing to do with international debacles, such as the impressment of U.S. soldiers off of the coast, and the continued disputes between England and France at the time. I must continue to digress, however, to establish my point.
Navymav 2 weeks ago
Hello gentlemen. Firstly, I would like to establish myself as a neutral party between you both, simply engaged in a scholarly debate to reveal enlightenment on our different perspectives on international issues. However, I would like to point out the fallacies in both of your arguments. To begin with, the United States as a diplomatic whole was not pressuring for war; we had, after the Spanish-American War of 1898, as well as the takeover of the Philippines in 1900, realized that imperialism was
Navymav 2 weeks ago
all the while it is insidiously in an often underhanded beaneath the surface way infiltrating and bending other countries to its will while not holding the best interests of those effected within that other country at heart. Usually and primarily its Americas interets which come first. My problem is with comparing all this to facist Germany and Japan and trying to make out somehow that its all one and the same. It isnt the US has nothing on the truly evil facist German and Japanese war machines.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
Your primary pt that America is imperialistic and that it seeks to control much of the globe in accordance with its interests partly by having an exceptionally strong military presence and by meddling in other countries affairs at times in such a way that it results in great suffering to those affected is entirely correct. One of the infuriating things about America is the way it dressed itself up to be the leader of the free world and protector of democracy etc while...
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@pine829
I will not waste more of my time crushing your feeble-minded attempts at rewriting history. You can claim that I am a flag waving, Hollywood adoring idiot all you want, but in the end you're still wrong. Read up on world affairs and go talk to people who have experienced things that you read about. The world might look different then.
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 I am sorry to have offended you. I would not characterize your debate as "crushing".
Actually, I have spent a good deal of time on these events. I see things differently.
I asked you to consider that the "gung-ho" telling of the history of the second world war has several difficulties. In particular, the role that FDR played in it. My contention is that he baited the US into a war that was not our to fight. Thus many Americans died needlessly.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829
You haven't offended me. I understand that people see things differently, but you seem to have distorted the way Germany and Japan started the war. I am not gung ho about American interventionism- I feel that WWII was a choice between taking the world stage or being relegated to being under Hitler's thumb.
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 My contention is that the present popular narrative is distorted. The winner gets to write the history books.
Once I discovered that FDR personally involved himself in the pacific fleet operations and was doing things that were directly against the advise of one commander (Richardson), who he then fired because he wouldn't shut up and continued over the same objections of his replacement (Kimmel) I took a different view of the start of the war and FDR generally.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829
I wouldn't say that Americans died needlessly, as the war would have come to our shores (one of the few that could) eventually. Where we screwed up is post-war. Vietnam should never have happened, just like many conflicts since then.
"Gung ho" history isn't always off the mark. There's a difference between a clear recounting of history and the propaganda that we, as citizens, get fed now.
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Roosevelt Corollary was a postulate of foreign policy, in addition to the Monroe Doctrine, authored by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Combined with the big stick policy, the corollary was the mark of a period of direct U.S. control over the Latin American countries.
According to the Monroe Doctrine, enunciated by James Monroe in 1823, the nations of America should, thereafter, be exempted from new European colonization.
172ryu 2 weeks ago
What the God has to do with it?
JohnyAngelo 3 weeks ago
The US was already at was with Japan via the Flying Tigers and the B-17 build up in the Philippines. The US had blocked oil to Japan from the East Indies and cut off exports. On Nov 15 1941 Gen Marshall said that he expected to be attacked by Japan "in the first 10 days of Dec."
FDR provoked the attack and deliberately used Pearl as bait over the objections of Kimmel and Short.
He is lying through his teeth in this speech. 300,000 Americans died in WW2 as a result.
pine829 3 weeks ago
@pine829 So, you would rather have had Nazi Germany take over Europe?...Apparently Republicans these days would prefer Hitler to admitting that Democrat ever did anything right.
violatedchimp 3 weeks ago
@violatedchimp The founding fathers of the US warned against entanglements with the imperialist nations of old world Europe - Briton, France, Austria et al. They are nations of eternal war.
At the point the US entered the war in Europe the battle of Briton had already occurred and Hitler had already begun his invasion of Russia which would seal his defeat. At the time the US knew that Germany was finished.
The reason the US entered the war was to take a big slice of pie.
pine829 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
violatedchimp 3 weeks ago
@violatedchimp Had the US not entered the war Hitler and Stalin would have beat each other senseless. Likely, Russia would have prevailed in a weakened condition.
With the US entering the war on the side of the greatest killer in history (Stalin), thereby preventing this beating, we created the conditions that lead to the cold war, a strong Russia.
As a point of fact, I do not care one wit what happens in Europe. They are all unreliable allies and poor friends.
pine829 3 weeks ago
@pine829 The US entering the war did not stop the largest most brutal and destructive land conflict ever from taking place. While the russians emerged from the war a military superower it would be wrong to not acknowledge properly the huge amount of damadge the war did too its country its civilian population many towns and majour cities completely desroyed etc. Rusia lost 20-30 million people in that war and suffered unimaginably.
MrNixity 3 weeks ago
@MrNixity The point is that the US entered the war largely after it had already been decided. Germany did not have the industrial capacity to replenish material losses, nor the fuel to support logistics. They could not land in Briton because they had no navy at the time and no landing craft. Going east, Germany had to beat both the Russians and the Russian winter. The US knew both of these things. We entered the war to get a slice of the pie. Period. 300,000 Americans died.
pine829 3 weeks ago
@pine829 While it may be true that America entered the war to get a slice of the pie. Its not so simple. Germanys defeat may have been inevitable via Russia. But the outcome of the war and the state of post war Europe was not decided. Would Russia have "liberated" western and central Europe? Or subjugated? Without America D day would not have been possible and the fate of western Europe either way could have been rather dark indeed. The outcome on the western front then was far from decided.
MrNixity 3 weeks ago
@MrNixity The point is this: the war in Europe was in Europe. It was not the concern of the US. Germany did not present a threat to the US. Period. It would not have mattered if they won the war or if they lost the war. All we did was exchange one brutal dictator for another. As it is we sided with the guy who was the BIGGER killer.
Read your history. D-Day was used as a diversion to take the pressure off of Russia in the east. All it did was get US soldiers killed.
pine829 3 weeks ago
@pine829 Again to simplistic while Germany didnt at the time present a direct threat to the US how does this automatically mean that it therefore would not have mattered to the US if it one or lost the war. And really , thats it? all the us did was exchange one brutal dictator for another? thats the entire pic here? Western europe wasnt liberated and rebuilt culminating in the EU later on. It was hitler who tried to conquer all of europe. Not stalin.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@pine829 No ones pretending Stalin ran an ethicall virtuous regime we know it was evil russia wasnt allied with based on its moral merit it was purely cooperated with so that what was seen as the bigger evil, facist Germany could be defeated. Yes Stalin for years had wanted a second front opened up to take off the pressure in the East but was this D Days only purpose in the end ? Its sole and complete outcome was the death of US soldiers ... i didnt realise D Day took place in a vacume.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity I don't mean to insult you, but virtually everyone discusses the tactics of the war. Very few ask the more basic question of "why" in the first place. When you look at this question in detail you are left with the answer that the US entered the war for imperialistic and economic reasons...that is to take a slice of the pie after a victory.
Making money is a crappy reason to ask a kid to give his life.
The US does not owe the world a policeman or a messiah.
pine829 3 weeks ago
@pine829 I think you will find most historiens look at the whys and causes of war in considerable depth vs tactics. Look im not disagreeing wih you you have and are making a good point. I just find it a to one dimentional and simplistic way of viewing Americas role within world war 2 which was after all a "world war". Im not American and am incredibly cyncal about the role America has played in the post world war 2 world order. Hence the concept of America as policeman and messiah is alien to me
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity One of the big myths of WW2 is that there were defensive needs of the US in WW2. This is false. The US was in no danger. Germany had no physical way of accomplishing it. Moreover, we knew it at the time. Thus, the next obvious question is why did we do it?
This is the more interesting question. I believe that the answer to this is the desire to create an American Empire...something that continues in an accelerating fashion today.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 If you wish to define defensive needs as simply menaing that the USAs territorial sovereignty was not especially threatened ie they were not in any danger of being invaded and conquered then your essentialy correct. I wouldnt define it so narrowly.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Narrow definition -That is precisely the problem we have gotten ourselves into. We no longer wage war for the purpose of defending our sovereign territory. Rather, we now wage war for nebulously defined "interests". Further, we have allowed the Presidency to assume the near dictatorial ability to wage war without the Constitutional requirement of a declaration by Congress.
We have become exactly what the Founders despised, an imperialistic nation of perpetual war.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 I agree here. My point is simply that japan and germany had to be defeated. To have large section of the globe locked down under facist regimes was never going to be ideologically aceptable to the US or Britain. Idelogical motives played a big role. It would have created an intolerable set of global conditions and a german contolled europe would have pretty much locked the us out of europe and japan would have locked the us out of asia. This left the US potentially very isolated.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Why do you say "had to be defeated". The present US is a Fascist state with a more far reaching empire than that contemplated by Germany. Is it that you don't like the idea of Fascism or that you don't like it when others do it. Do you not see that we are dealing with countries that were having wars in Africa and other places far from Europe...do you not ever ask how they got this land to fight over in the beginning?
pine829 2 weeks ago
Take a good look at the Lincoln Memorial. Lincoln is sitting with his hands on 2 fasces....a bundle of sticks that symbolize a strong state. It was one of the symbols of Rome and their state. Many other Europeans as well. This same symbol is on our currency...Mercury and Roosevelt dime. This notion of a strong central state is exactly opposite of the intention of the founders of this nation and directly in opposition to the Constitution. Foreign wars are not our problem,
pine829 2 weeks ago
The US has military influence and military bases throughout the world. We ring the globe with our ability to kill and destroy. We regularly provoke wars, install and then prop up dictators, meddle in foreign government, provide military help and material to despots, suppress democracy, steal resources and pollute foreign lands.
Is it that you don't like the concept of military imperialism itself or just a challenge to our own.
We are far worse than Germany ever hoped to be.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 To say the USA is far worse then Germany ever hoped to be is an insensitive insult to the 6 million Jews gassed in chambers during world war 2 and to all the people who were massacred raped and systematically shot by the German fascist war machine which had absolutely no regard for human life. Its an insult to the 30 million or so people who lost their lives on the eastern front. The German regime was truly evil.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity You miss my point. You said that Germany wanted to take over the world. I am pointing out to you the the US has effectively accomplished this today. To wit: the US effectively controls North America both economically and militarily, pushes around the Europeans like cattle, has a commanding military presence in the Middle East militarily having invaded 2 countries so far and working on a third and props up several brutal regimes that are friendly to us like Saudi Arabia.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity I was in no way defending Germany or their actions. What I am attempting to get you to think about is whether you are against empire building a point of principle, or whether you just don't like it when a guy you don't like is doing it.
The aims of Germany were no different from those of the British, French, Russian, Austrian, Byzantine, Roman, American or Mongol empires.
The problem is the desire to create these empires at all, not who's doing it.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 while an interesting paper can no doubt be written alluding to the similarities between fascism and modern America, its ultimately not fascist and fascist states do not change governments through an open electoral system (spin and lies propounded through the media aside). If you had lived under the Nazi regime i am confident you would appreciate more some of the differences ... similarities aside.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Do you believe that one day the whole of Germany or Italy or any other country that has gone down this path woke up one morning and said "Yup, today I want to be Fascist"?
On the contrary, this was reached by a process of incremental solidification of central authority.
Do you not see the parallels between the "enabling acts" and the Patriot Act and its following legislation?"
Does it bother you that the President has usurped the Congressional ability to declare war
pine829 2 weeks ago
The bigger question is whether or not the herd of frogs in the bucket ever know they're being boiled, or do they just keep waving the flag, talking about the good old days in WW2 and singing patriotic songs.
The question is not whether you or I would have recognized Nazi Germany in the end days, but whether or not we would have recognized it when it started. After all, who wouldn't want a strong America, or safety from terror.
You are right, America is not Fascist.....yet.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829
Ignorance at its best. I'll just let MrNixity sort you out
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@pine829 You are completely wrong man..But as someone said " there is stupid people everywhere , and now hidden on youtube"...you are twisting huge historical events...Probably just to caught attention ...
jeanmanuel77 2 weeks ago
@jeanmanuel77 I would advise that you just leave him alone. "You can't fix stupid."
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Herokid32 2 weeks ago
@pine829 But i agree with you in that Amerca did its best to postion itself so that after the war the world would run more or less according to its interests. It did that very well. Of course all countries scramble to get the best outcome for their own interests. Russia not being any different here insofar as it tried to get the best postwar deal outcome it could.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@pine829 ie America was very keen to dismatel the british and frensh colonial empires after the war (as it was in accordance with their interests). And the next time britain tried to exercise a bit of global clout ie at Suez it got smaked into line by the US very quickly.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity I agree with this. One of the things that bothers me about this is that empires almost always fail when they become over extended. I believe that we are over extended economically and militarily The US does not have enough money, might or guns to deal with the totality of the potential challenges it faces. We would find that in the face of hard times that many of our old friends, particularly the Europeans, would throw us under the bus.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity What was happening in Europe at that time was not the concern of the US. Europe is composed of countries that were at perpetual war with each other. The most imperialistic states ever to exist, with the present exception of the US, were Briton, France, Austria, Spain, Russia and a host of lesser players. None posed a direct threat to the US. It was not our war. Whoever won would have made a good trading partner. As it was, we sided with Stalin, the biggest murderer ever.
pine829 3 weeks ago
@pine829 To simplistic. Having a nazi controlled European continent would hardly have been good for America. Hitler partly instigated the war as he forsaw Americas rise and for Europe to remain a great power he thought a unified nazi controlled continent harnasing russias resources was the only option. A nazi or russian controlled Europe would not have just made a good trading partner ie was the USSR just a good trading partner for the US? Whoever one would have been oppositional to the US.
MrNixity 3 weeks ago
@MrNixity WW2 is the direct result of the Treaty of Versailles. The crushing provisions of this were what enabled Hitler's rise. (The last payment of this treaty was Oct 3 2010...92 years).
No one knows what might have happened. You could just as well make the argument that a strong winning Germany might have prevented the entire cold war by providing a Continental balance to Russia.
pine829 3 weeks ago
@pine829 Stalin is undoubtably one of the very biggest murderers ever
(in terms of pure numbers) mao is competative too. But unlike Hitler the USSR had not untill opportunity presented itself after the war been aggresively expansional and recklessly declared war everywhere. It was rather internally focsed comparatively speaking. The russians were as appauled as the west when they saw the eastern death camps of Germany. Hitler was someone who had to be defeated.
MrNixity 3 weeks ago
@MrNixity The US sided with both Russia and China in WW2. We knew their character before we signed on. What has always bothered my about this whole subject is the notion that there were good guys and bad guys in this. They were all bad guys...including the US. The US participated in terrorist "area bombing" as well as being the first to use a nuclear weapon.
What I do know is that neither Germany or Russia had the ability to invade the US at the time.. They still don't.
pine829 3 weeks ago
@pine829 Again its to simplistic. I agree in worldwar 2 all sides did things which were wrong and bad. The carpet bombing of cities was just plain horrific ... essentialy massacering civilians to grind the other side down. But to go from saying there were bad guys and good guys to they are all the same just bad guys is also wrong. It was germany and japan who were invading other countries and embarking on ruthless brital conquest.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity typo = brutal
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@pine829
Terrorist area bombing? Nuclear weapons? I consider anything that prevented the war from dragging on any longer to be excusable. While the U.S.'s role in Europe might be more debatable, our role in the Pacific was not. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and undertook a wide-ranging offensive across the Pacific. Japan massacred civilians in a most barbaric manner, especially in China. They got what they had coming to them.
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 The fact is that the US baited Japan into attacking. WE wanted the war. Let's get the history right.
There are bad guys all over the world. No where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that ridding the world of bad guys is a required act.
One of the things that drives me crazy is that we have devolved from country of enlightened independents forming a Constitutional Republic into a New-Rome of blood-thirsty pirates looking for the next source of booty.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 The fact is that the US baited Japan into attacking. WE wanted the war. Let's get the history right.
There are bad guys all over the world. No where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that ridding the world of bad guys is a required act.
One of the things that drives me crazy is that we have devolved from country of enlightened independents forming a Constitutional Republic into a New-Rome of blood-thirsty pirates looking for the next source of booty.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 The fact is that the US baited Japan into attacking. WE wanted the war. Let's get the history right.
There are bad guys all over the world. No where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that ridding the world of bad guys is a required act.
One of the things that drives me crazy is that we have devolved from country of enlightened independents forming a Constitutional Republic into a New-Rome of blood-thirsty pirates looking for the next source of booty.
pine829 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mkcsu27 The fact is that the US baited Japan into attacking. WE wanted the war. Let's get the history right.
There are bad guys all over the world. No where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that ridding the world of bad guys is a required act.
One of the things that drives me crazy is that we have devolved from country of enlightened independents forming a Constitutional Republic into a New-Rome of blood-thirsty pirates looking for the next source of booty.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 For me, the nuclear bombing of Japan is a particular problem. The Japanese were already beaten. A simple naval blockade could have prevented any further hostile act literally forever.
Rather, we realized what kind of person we were dealing with in Stalin...and he was already half way across Europe. He very well might have been able to continue all the way to Spain.
I believe that we dropped the A-Bomb on Japan to intimidate Stalin, not the Japanese.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829
For me, being someone who's grandparents had to undergo Japanese occupation, I have no problem with the nuking. You forget what kind of people the Japanese were in 1945. They were vicious and brutal. Just look at the Rape of Nanking. They got what they deserved. And if we didn't side with Stalin, then the war would have ended even more badly than it did.
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@pine829
Besides, strategic bombing, as it is properly called, is not a terrorist tactic. It is a legitimate tool of war that also happens to have tragic effects. In the case of Japan and Germany, bombing helped shorten the duration of the war, which in my book, is worth it. Remember, if Japan and Germany didn't start it, then they wouldn't have brought down the inevitable wrath of everyone they attacked.
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 Call it whatever you wish, it IS a terrorist act because the purpose of it is to incite "terror" into a population rather than decrease the military or industrial material available to a war effort.
The US and Britain used it in Germany in a nearly one sided fashion in Europe. This is largely because the Germans were no good at it comparatively.
In Japan, it was even more lop-sided.
It shortened the war in calender time, but at the expense of a higher body count.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829
No, the idea is to break the enemy's will while crushing industrial capability. Why do you think the U.S. targeted industrial sites like the Ruhr Valley, Schweinfurt, etc?
Do you just decide to ignore the Blitz and the Battle of Britain? And in the case of Germany, they shifted targets from military and industrial targets TO civilian population centers. Explain that, will you?
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 "...enemy's will....". Correct, by creating terror. Have you forgotten Dresden or Tokyo? I understand the tactic and the reasons for it. Where we part company is that I don't see one side wearing white hat and one side wearing black hats. Both sides used terrorist tactics.
Moreover, The was no threat to the US posed by Germany. We had no need to enter the war for defensive reasons. We did so for financial, political and imperialistic reasons.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829
Terrorist tactics? You definitely don't know where to draw the line then. You seem to be awfully intent on saying that the Allies were equally guilty as the Axis.
And you claim that Germany posed no threat to the U.S.- that's fine if you take an ignorant, interventionist viewpoint. If Japan and Germany had ended up ruling Asia and Europe, then the United States would have been shut out of the world and been forced to capitulate to their demands eventually
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@pine829
Japan conducted strategic bombing of Chongqing, China until 1943. Not to mention bombings of countless other cities. Lop sided? Hell yes, the Chinese never touched Japanese soil.
You, unfortunately, are a historical revisionist who twists and bends historical events while ignoring facts to fit a viewpoint. Please go read a little bit, especially sources from the period. WWII was an unfortunate event, but do remember that Germany and Japan initiated hostilities.
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 I ask you to put down the flag and try to forget all of the John Wayne war movies you've seen and re-look at the history with a slightly different perspective.
First, look at WW2 as simply a continuation of WW1. Specifically look at the effect of the treaty of Versailles and what it did to the Germans.
Second, look at the state of the German army at the entry point of the US.
Third, look at actions of FDR to the Japanese in the 2 years before Dec 7 1941
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 John Wayne movies? No, I speak as an American who had grandparents under Japanese occupation. I have a far clearer view of history as I do not twist and contort facts to match a fantasy agenda.
The Versaille Treaty was flawed and unfair. Get over it, as it doesn't give the Germans the right to murder 12 million Jews, Gypsies, communists, and other "undesirables." It doesn't give them the right to start a war of conquest in which millions of European civilians were murdered.
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 Of course they had no "right". That is not the issue. The issue is why should the United States get involved with other peoples wars?
You recoil in horror at the deaths of Jews and Gypsies, but you seem perfectly willing to excuse the murder of tens of millions by your ally Stalin...who by the way was a murderer BEFORE we cuddled up with him.
Admit it, it is not killing that bothers you, it is only that you want to pick who gets killed.
pine829 2 weeks ago
I suggest you look at FDR's actions in the time preceding Dec 7 1941. What you will find is that he poked Japan in the eye with the intention of getting into that war. FDR manipulated the US navy such that the fleet at Pearl was "bait". He did this over the strong objections of several different fleet commanders. It was clearly deliberate.
I object to the President of the US using those lives as pawns in that fashion on principle.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 you assume people are excusing the murder of tens of millions people by Stalin in an effort to give extra weight to your argument.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@pine829
The German Army? Are you kidding me? Albert Speer wanted to ramp up production dramatically. The Germany economy moved from a peacetime one shift system to three shifts. Why do you think they managed to increase production during the bombing? The Germans were trying to win their expansionary war.
"Look at the actions of FDR..." This proves you are an idiot. If you don't object to the Japanese conquest of China, then you have no moral standing at all.
mkcsu27 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 I am not attempting to justify the actions of the Japanese. What I am saying is that the US had no threat from Japan. Had we not aided the European war effort with lend-lease, cut off Japanese oil, flown air campaigns against them with the Flying Tigers, built up a B-17 bombing capacity in the Philippines and sailed warships into their waters, they would not have retaliated.
It was not our war and we should have stayed out of it.
I object to all US imperial intervention
pine829 2 weeks ago
@mkcsu27 I do object to the Japanese conquest of China...philosophically. My morals are such that I do not believe in killing my citizens to prevent it. In the same way, I object to the terrible killing that has occurred at the hands of various Chinese leaders on its own citizens. For example the "Great Leap Forward" likely killed more than 40 million from '58 to '62.
I do not know if more or less would have died had Japan been successful in their conquest.
pine829 2 weeks ago
What I do know is that less Americans would have died.
You see, the issue with Japan/China is that our enabling a Chinese "victory" may have cost more total lives in the long run.
From a purely selfish view, I am not sure that China is not a worse long term threat to the US than an Imperial Japan. The US may have been better off militarily to let Japan subdue China. In 20 years we will know the answer to this.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 Enabling a chinese victory? You mean enabling china to rid itself of a murderous bloodthirsty power hungry bunch of inhuman japanese militeristic maniacs who subjected the chinese civilian population to unimaginable acts of dgredation humiliation and appauling atrocities? Enabling it to retain its territorial sovreignty and for better or worse to be a country with its own destiny. The japanese saw the chinese as being little better than cockroaches and treated them as such.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity For all your words, it resulted in a Chinese victory it would not have had otherwise. This likely lowered the immediate Chinese body count. However, this then led to the rise of Mao which then led to "The Great Leap Forward" in '58-'62. This then lead to at least 40 million dead...about the same body count as the entire war dead in WW2 for both sides. Regardless of the treatment of the Japanese the Mao body count is higher and the atrocities the same.
pine829 2 weeks ago
The point is that interventions like this one do not always lead to better results with the person "helped".
Given that Japan did not represent a direct threat to the US, the US should have stayed out of the war with Japan, which it could have done easily.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 What is the pt in bringing in such a hypothetical? The fact remains it was japan who posed a direct threat to the territorial sovreignty of the bulk of Asia. It was japan who in actuality rather than in the vague realm of the hypotheticals invaded china and south east asia commiting unimaginable acts of cruelty on a routine basis. They were racist treated people like roaches and were unimaginably crule in their treatment of the conquered. Such extreme facism is not exceptable.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity and is by its very nature a threat to any meaningful global peace stability an security. Its inherantly expansionist agressive and violent , the japanese actually did pose a direct threat to the sovreign territorial integrity of say Australia as well. You say America is the same? There are degrees and a cursary glance at the facts hammers home the fact that we are not comparing like with like.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity iraq and vietnam does not equal the scale of the horror of world war 2 and the evil nature of and acts of the japanese facist war macine with no regard for human life. Having military bases around the globe and flexing ones muscle does not equate to the atrocities enacted by the facist war machines. A desire to influence meddle in and and control other countries affairs for economic and geopolitical reasons does not compare again to the horrific facist war macine.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity machine. Trying to dominate much of the globe through the means America has used is not comparable still to the rape massacres ethnic cleansing and all out annihalative measures employed by facism. Invading countries and controlling continents in the manner that germany and japan did is worse then the ways in which the us exerts its power and control. Again im not American and am highly critical of the way America acts on the world stage.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Your right to be as critical as you are of the behaviour of post war imperialistic America. Where your going wrong is with your one dimentional thought and desire to subsume all historical events into your revisionistic nexus. You say your critical of the gung ho hist of world war 2. Maybe the prob was with what u read or with the way they present hist in America. But as far as im aware of most considered histories of world war 2 do not paint this simplistic black and whit pic that you
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity purport to be so critical of. In fact im wonderingf if you havent just set up a straw man for yourself here. Most of the histories critically look at the whys and they dont ignore the fact its a war, its bloody messy and both sides do things which are wrong and morally questionable to say the least. The allies do not escape a fair degree of condemnation or criticism. But any level headed non revisionist assesment concludes that it was Germany Japan who behaved all the more appaulingly.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity did i mention im not American and that i have no starry eyed awe for the stars and stripes. Who is John Wayne?
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity 50's, '60's Movie actor, always played the white hat cowboy, jungle explorer, oil well driller or WW2 army sergeant. He could carry 3 wounded men from a foxhole under enemy fire, beat 12 men in a bar fight, shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand, drink a bottle of whiskey, catch the cheater at Poker and then get the girl all in the same evening.
The living incarnation of your own heroic self.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 Your embarassing yourself ... such childish misplaced metaphores do nothing but detract from the strength of your argument. Debate me on what i say... unless your getting frustrated and running out of things to say.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Am I missing something? I meant you no offense. You said you didn't know who John Wayne was. I took this as a sincere question. He was a movie actor who played essentially the same character no matter what the subject of the movie.
The last line was not a reference to you personally, but I meant it as a general explanation of what he was to the post WW2 average American. He was the hero that every little boy wanted to be.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity I guess that depends which side of the "intervention" or bomb sight you are on. The fact is that the US is in the habit of propping up brutal dictators worldwide (Saddam, Mubarak, Pol Pot, Marcos, Pinochet, Somoza and so on) and invading countries for profit (Iraq, Guatemala, Afghanistan and so on). Millions have died as a direct result of these intervention. This is not just "flexing muscle". Do yourself a favor and look up the number dead from our dictators and wars
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 Pol Pot was supported by America? Please explain this one to me?
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Pol Pot was supported by the US as part of its "intervention" with Viet Nam/Cambodia. Rather than recite the whole story here, I found a halfway decent synopsis on the web that pretty well covers it. If you Google the following, you will find a PDF document
"The Long Secret Alliance by John Pilger"
John Pilger is an Australian documentary film producer.
This document cites many sources. Several of these will carry you to other decent news/commentary/description.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 i got the article
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@pine829 Agreed but its wrong to equate all this to what the evil facist war machine set out to do, its just not the same.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Where I come from, we have a saying: "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
If you look at both the "good" and "bad" guys, you must conclude that their goals are essentially the same, their methods are essentially the same and the collateral damage is the same. To the victims, the only difference seems to be the color of the flag, the cut of the uniform and the political promises they don't live to see.
"We had to kill them to save them."
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 How about we drop the good guys and bad gys rehetoric and call them all bad guys. Still there are degrees of badness and i maintain that the evil facist war machine was MORE bad then America and say Britain during the war. Germany wished to control Europe through all out total war and on the Eastern front annihalation. It was a war of annihalation. The scal of the atrocities the sheer scale of it all and COMPLETE disregegard at all for human life is beyond comprhension.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity I'm all for dropping all the "good guy/bad guy" stuff. They are the same, but different.
Is there really any difference between the 2 sides? They bombed, we bombed. They killed civilians, we killed civilians. They killed POW's, we killed POW's. They wanted more land, we wanted more land...and the Brits, Russians and French were bigger and more long lasting empires to boot.
The countries/land conquered by these would tell a different story.
pine829 1 week ago
@pine829 The goal of the US was not to conquer indefinitely and in totality a completre continent. The methods they use today arenot the same. They are and they are not of course the US has invaded ther countries atrocities have been commited and they at times act with little regard to the welfare of citizens in other countries. This is all very wrong and bad. But it dosent mach the pure evil of the facist german war machine or the atrocities it commited.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Really? Have we militarily left Europe? Have we stopped installing dictators in central america, asia and the middle east? Have we stopped promoting wars that result in our profit? Seems to me that we have 2 of them going on right now and that we're working on a third. i expect that any day now we or our partner in crime, Israel, will be invading Iran.
We have killed millions.
To me, this is evil.
pine829 1 week ago
@pine829 Not that you will, but would you please read "Moral Combat" by Michael Burleigh, start to finish? I surmise that you won't because folks like you always take the easiest way out in life, comfortably equivocating all things difficult because you never will once stand up for anything. You remove INTENT from the political argument, and then pat your own spineless back as morally superior. Immerse yourself in that book and you just might grow a bit.
networkdeath 1 day ago
@networkdeath I will. Please temper your insults, you do not know me. I have seen such death personally.
Do you believe that "morality" is judged on words or stated intention or do you believe that "morality" is established by results? Or is it based on something else completely different.
For example, we have killed several million Iraqi, a large percentage who were children, based on "words" that ended up being lies.
In your calculus is this "moral"?
pine829 1 day ago
What I see, time and again is that the "winner" in a war judges themselves by their rhetoric. Morality degenerates into rationalization that there was only a single course of action that was thrust upon them thereby creating an imperative. The results of this action is then blamed entirely on the vanquished. This is intellectually sloppy and had within it the seeds to repeat the process.
The "spine" you talk about is the backbone to look at the whole truth, and yourself.
pine829 1 day ago
@pine829 The US has not sought the extermination of entire races of people through gas chambers. The Germans also soght to exterminate and bring into complete slavery all the slavic people. Perhaps it is all about degrees. The facist movement allowed NO dissent at all no freedoms and so peple were shot with no second thought both within and without Germany. The US allows more freedoms certainly within America then fdacist Germany did the regime of the US is not as evil though it is pretty bad.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity With all respect, the US engaged in terrorist bombing of a civilian population in Germany and Japan, starved the German army after the war, dropped several atomic weapons on a civilian population.
Since that war, the US has supported dictators literally all over the planet including Pol Pot, Batista, Chiang Kai-shek, Somoza, Pinnochet, Saddam, the Shah of Iran, starved a million Iraqi children as part of an embargo and many others.
Do some research yourself.
pine829 1 day ago
@pine829 is this a reply to my comment?
MrNixity 1 day ago
@MrNixity No. It was a second comment to "networkdeath".
For whatever reason a comment that I appended to my own comment to another ended up to you. It showed up right when I first posted it, but it has changed.
pine829 1 day ago
@pine829 i don't recall arguing ever that the US is morally virtuous all i have ever maintained is that the US regime is not AS EVIL as the German fascist regime.
MrNixity 1 day ago
I think a problem your getting yourself into is byt trying to reduce morality to a mathematically ll important statistic ie how many lives were lost i guess a quasi utilitarian position. But geopolitics war and morality the rights and wrongs cannot be seen clearly through such a statistic. Morality right and wrong good and bad cannot be sytemically asessed in any meaningful way on a geopolitical level with such a mindset.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity For one thing the world was in a positin to dismantel facism in Europe but was not in any real sense in a position to dismantel communism in Russia. For another facism was externaly agressive and acted appaulingly towardss other countries in a way that cannot really be said abut Rusia.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Is there any meaning to say that 6 million jews died 30 million slaves on the eastern front etc etc etc vs 30 million in the gulags or whatever and whoever edges with the bigger number has the geopolitical moral deficit. I for one see little to no pt in assesing something as complex and multifacted as world war to through such base thinking.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Of course im not suggesting that the statistic how many lives lost is not important as clearly it is its very important and a key moral utilitarian pt. But im saying morality in the real worls is complex it does not occur in an ideal vacume. Trying to critique complex historical events and movements through such basic moral thought is what is the problem here. Maybe you should take a course in applied ethics as applied to historical events.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Also while the US hleped Russia defeat Germany its not really entirly fair to say that they sided with the biggest killer. Helping russia defeat germany does not amount to condoning the nature of the russian regime. Maybe its just semantics but helped to defeat facism not sided with the biggest killer is a more apt phrase. After all America and Russia immediatly assumed an hostile stance to one another after the war. Suggests the alliance was a little flaky.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity Well it really is just semantics of you are honest. In the end you either help or don't help a government and then you either get more or less of what they're doing. What I find troubling is when the help we give is good for us, but bad for the people who actually live there. Iran is a perfect example. By installing the Shah (good for our interests, bad for the Iranian people) we create the conditions that resulted in the theocracy we find so troubling now.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@MrNixity I guess that this also depends on which side of the statistic you're on. The basic issue I have with the "moral" argument is that I don't see a statistical difference between when the "good guys" win and when the "bad guys" win. For example, when the US inserted itself into Guatemala in the '50's, the "good guys" got cheap bananas and a whole lot of Guatemalans got dead and poorer. Same deal with Iraq. Same deal with Iran and the Shah, Same deal in East Timor.
pine829 2 weeks ago
@pine829 On V... lets not forget again that it was basically the Germans who were the agressors during world war 1. The atrocities the German army committed as they moved through western Europe ie belgium should not be forgotten. The Germans army shoul have been obliterated by the allies but was not mistakenly it was allowed to return in surrender to Germany. The allies one of course they were going to impose strict conditions on Germany. But before going poor Germany dont forget what they did.
MrNixity 2 weeks ago
@violatedchimp I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. Both are equally, but uniquely, corrupt.
The Democrats, when they are able, are destroying the country with a long slow slide into socialism and moral decay. A huge State teat that nurses sloth, ignorance and evil.
The Republicans are the home of corporate and military corruption. We now openly wage war and kill for the padding of balance sheets. Our young men are dying for rich old men. Evil cowards all.
pine829 3 weeks ago
@violatedchimp One of the issues I have with this speech is that it is a lie.
FDR baited Japan into an attack. Technically, because the US Flying Tigers were already flying missions against Japan we were already at war. We were also building up a huge B-17 presence in the Philippines. The Japanese knew this. We had already cut off their imported oil....an act of war.
Kimmel and Short warned FDR that they were sitting ducks. By FDR's own orders the bait was set.
pine829 3 weeks ago
Fuck FDR, this asshole was one of the worst presidents in history. He aggressively expanded the office of the presidency well beyond its constitutional limits. He began the whole "big government" thinking that still pervades our political culture. Asshole and he was a fucking moron to boot.
MaiLingDolly 1 month ago
@MaiLingDolly In times of Crisis, i see nothing wrong with increasing the power of the leadership. The Romans did it quite effectively. He didn't seek to make a big government, it was up to later leaders to further corrupt that. I give him credit for successfully leading the USA through a major war and guiding them to become the Superpower it is today.
MadMilitiaMen 1 month ago
@MadMilitiaMen I do respect your opinion, FDR was certainly popular for many Americans. I do see a big problem with increasing the power of leadership, James Madison never envisioned the executive power usurping the Supreme Court or legislature as he did. Also, the outcome of WWII was never in doubt, our industrial might at that time guaranteed victory, FDR or any other President could have guided us to victory.
MaiLingDolly 1 month ago
@MaiLingDolly A large power is indeed not an effective form or leadership. However, i do believe that it is a needed evil in times of crisis to be reduced at the conclusion. Also while it is true that America would have won the war, FDR's lendlease and other plans did much to shorten the war prior to our entry. Other presidents could have guided us to victory, but i truly believe none would have done it as well as him.
MadMilitiaMen 1 month ago
@MadMilitiaMen Good points about the lend lease! I've always favored Taft as one of my favorite presidents. He is not often mentioned as one of the greats but I like the fact that he was not an "active" president and preferred to let congress have preeminence in government. As Jefferson said "I am no fan of energetic government", which makes me a "radical" I guess in today's times! lol
MaiLingDolly 1 month ago
@MaiLingDolly FDR may have been one of the worst US Presidents, but since ~1900 they all have been bad. Since about this time the US turned into an imperialist state just like Briton, France, Russia, Austria....all the way to old Rome. The US became a de facto Fascist state then. I say this because the actual differences between the various political parties is small. They all believe in a strong state...exactly opposite of the founders of this country. This is accelerating.
pine829 3 weeks ago
God bless you FDR.You were the one of the finest presidents we ever had.
MLGZ75 1 month ago
burn in hell fdr you scum
omid11 1 month ago
"Nevermind I was the one who pissed off the Japanese instead of staying nuetral as the American people wished...Nevermind it is I who is at fault for the death of those young boys...No, it was suddenly and deliberately attacked..."
This is why I never vote Democrat.
Believe the Liberal's lies if you want, FDR was one of the worst presidents we ever had.
SpadaccinoLuciano 1 month ago
That's because of all these "Wonderful Democrat presidents" that we owe so much money. FDR didn't completely get us out of the Great Depression.It took WWII to get us out.WE actually had a balanced budget under Nixon.This clown we have now had better not get re-elected or we're toast.I never thought there could be a poorer excuse for a president than Carter but we have one now who's worse than him.The sooner this clown leaves office w/the 'royal' Madam Mao Michelle & Valerie Jarrett the better!
libralady1010 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Yes, he was a Democrats...
Koi880 1 month ago
Democrats have produced Americas finest presidents!! Period, republicunts are bunch of overfed...dilusioned ingrates
Koi880 1 month ago
@Koi880 Finest? Like FDR, who dragged America into WWII, who interred hundreds of innocent Americans? Like Jackson, who removed the Native Americans? Like Wilson, who dragged America into WWI? Like Johnson, who dragged America into Viet Nam? Like Truman, who dropped the bombs, then made them grow deadlier and deadlier before dragging America into Korea, where he fied war hero General MacArthur?
Yeah. Damn fine.
SpadaccinoLuciano 1 month ago
Let's get this straight everyone insulting each other in these comments is retarded ok have a nice day
MrSomeidiot13 1 month ago
@MadMilitiaMen shut up about Moncho1234! hes not a troll ur a troll! u have been trolling! u were born a troll! do us all a favor and stop posting stupid comments!!!!!
randomdudes13 1 month ago
My favorite president
Dwain9695 1 month ago
Alot of dumb folks here in the comments. But to add to jmwvideoman22, thats of course not were he is referring to. He is referring to the economic sanctions usa placed on Japan. And also referring to the black fleet entering Japanese territory 80 years earlier. But Americans have the tendency to forget their abuses and unrightful actions. Still its a good thing they teached the Japanese a lessn
arjanv45 1 month ago
there a reason why the japanese bomb pearl harbor and this president is too stupid too see what happen and what he did to them
PredatorRayified 1 month ago