Morally Acceptable?

With reference to the question in the OP, is this morally acceptable?

  • Total voters
    0
#277
#277
nbakerld said:
Except for that's not what I said. I didn't say specifically our involvement was unnecessary, I said the war itself was completely unnecessary. The whole thing could have been avoided had it not been for retaliatory foreign policy after WWI. IMO, Hitler does not come to power without the Allies' sanctions of Germany. So we are basically in agreement per your final paragraph. France and USA telling us to **** off when they were putting our future nuts on the line is exactly why entangling alliances are stupid.
Click to expand...
Okay, that makes sense? Are you German? Just wondering.

But you still said you would have preferred the US not get involved. I just cant see how that would have been a good idea.
 
#279
#279
tvolsfan said:
Okay, that makes sense? Are you German? Just wondering.

But you still said you would have preferred the US not get involved. I just cant see how that would have been a good idea.
Click to expand...

Not German (that I know of). British descent.

Germany had spread themselves too thin, IMO. Even if they conquered Europe I highly doubt they could have sustained their empire for any time (and I think Russia would have made conquering Europe impossible).

Worst-case scenario: Even if Germany had conquered Europe and sustained it, we would have just traded one dictator for another. It doesn't really make a difference to me. Yeah, we saved some Jews that Hitler was killing but what about all the people our ally Stalin killed (which I believe he killed more)? The Soviets ended up conquering east Europe, so we were pretty much back to square one before joining WWII (so instead of saying we had turned a blind eye to Hitler, we now have to claim we helped Stalin).
 
#284
#284
nbakerld said:
Except for that's not what I said. I didn't say specifically our involvement was unnecessary, I said the war itself was completely unnecessary. The whole thing could have been avoided had it not been for retaliatory foreign policy after WWI. IMO, Hitler does not come to power without the Allies' sanctions of Germany. So we are basically in agreement per your final paragraph. France and USA telling us to **** off when they were putting our future nuts on the line is exactly why entangling alliances are stupid.
Click to expand...

This makes more sense.
 
#286
#286
nbakerld said:
Not German (that I know of). British descent.

Germany had spread themselves too thin, IMO. Even if they conquered Europe I highly doubt they could have sustained their empire for any time (and I think Russia would have made conquering Europe impossible).

Worst-case scenario: Even if Germany had conquered Europe and sustained it, we would have just traded one dictator for another. It doesn't really make a difference to me. Yeah, we saved some Jews that Hitler was killing but what about all the people our ally Stalin killed (which I believe he killed more)? The Soviets ended up conquering east Europe, so we were pretty much back to square one before joining WWII (so instead of saying we had turned a blind eye to Hitler, we now have to claim we helped Stalin).
Click to expand...

I think your worst case isn't "worst" enough. Think of Germany with basically no Western or Southern fronts to fight. In short order the Axis (remember, it was more than just Germany) pretty much owns Europe and the Pacific. Basically unmolested all those nifty things you always hear about "coming about too late to matter" for Germany in WWII do come about, like the ME262 and V2. With us sitting on the sidelines who gets The Bomb first? Anybody wanna trade Nagasaki and Hiroshima for Moscow and Leningrad?

Perhaps some of your "necessary" arguments have some merit as to how we got to having Hitler come to power etc but once the Axis became what it was I can't see our getting involved as anything BUT necessary.
 
#287
#287
hndog609 said:
I think your worst case isn't "worst" enough. Think of Germany with basically no Western or Southern fronts to fight. In short order the Axis (remember, it was more than just Germany) pretty much owns Europe and the Pacific. Basically unmolested all those nifty things you always hear about "coming about too late to matter" for Germany in WWII do come about, like the ME262 and V2. With us sitting on the sidelines who gets The Bomb first? Anybody wanna trade Nagasaki and Hiroshima for Moscow and Leningrad?

Perhaps some of your "necessary" arguments have some merit as to how we got to having Hitler come to power etc but once the Axis became what it was I can't see our getting involved as anything BUT necessary.
Click to expand...

Well first of all, let me clarify. We take on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Let Germany declare war on us. If they want to fight, they know where to find us. I don't think it's in our best interest to have a country declare war on us and then have the fight on their turf. I highly doubt Germany would have ever invaded the US.

Maybe worst case-scenario isn't bad enough, but I don't think the Axis powers are doing more damage than the USSR did. The world may have been better off. We don't really ever consider that possibility.
 
#288
#288
nbakerld said:
Well first of all, let me clarify. We take on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Let Germany declare war on us. If they want to fight, they know where to find us. I don't think it's in our best interest to have a country declare war on us and then have the fight on their turf.
Click to expand...

At this point, I stopped reading.
 
#293
#293
IPorange said:
That's because you have a sense for the very collateral damage he is so upset about, and what that'd look like over here rather than there.
Click to expand...

You assume they'd take the fight here. I highly doubt it. Definitely fighting on the high seas.

I'd rather contain them then go to their fortifications and attack.
 
#294
#294
nbakerld said:
You assume they'd take the fight here. I highly doubt it. Definitely fighting on the high seas.

I'd rather contain them then go to their fortifications and attack.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically, the US does not get involved, even though Germany declares war on the US and eventually defeats both the British and the Russians (a very distinct possibility).

The German Navy would have had unimpeded access to all the ports of France and would not have any competition in getting in and out of the Baltic and North Seas.

With the U-Boat, plus full Naval armada, there is no way that our Navy would have been able to keep Germany troops and planes from US territory and airspace.

Remember, if we were not involved, we would not have received the cracked Enigma codes from the British.
 
#295
#295
therealUT said:
Hypothetically, the US does not get involved, even though Germany declares war on the US and eventually defeats both the British and the Russians (a very distinct possibility).

The German Navy would have had unimpeded access to all the ports of France and would not have any competition in getting in and out of the Baltic and North Seas.

With the U-Boat, plus full Naval armada, there is no way that our Navy would have been able to keep Germany troops and planes from US territory and airspace.

Remember, if we were not involved, we would not have received the cracked Enigma codes from the British.
Click to expand...

Yeah, everyone is making good points, but the problem is we are all dealing in hypotheticals (as you pointed out). We don't really know one way or another, and will never know.
 
#296
#296
nbakerld said:
Yeah, everyone is making good points, but the problem is we are all dealing in hypotheticals (as you pointed out). We don't really know one way or another, and will never know.
Click to expand...

We know that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was hell bent at taking over the world. That's enough for me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#297
#297
JayVols said:
We know that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was hell bent at taking over the world. That's enough for me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yeah, and so was the USSR, which is a point I already made. By helping Europe against Germany, we paved the way for the USSR.
 
#298
#298
nbakerld said:
Yeah, and so was the USSR, which is a point I already made. By helping Europe against Germany, we paved the way for the USSR.
Click to expand...

It's hypothetical of course but I have serious questions of Germany having nearly the trouble they had on the Eastern front if they didn't have a Western and Southern front. You seem to be taking a hard "we did that therefore this happened" thing with Russia. Without US aid Hitler isolates Britain into being a non-factor in short order. The need to push into Russia for war materials is greatly reduced and they can keep working on their advanced military designs (up to and including nukes) unmolested by those pesky US and British bombing raids. (They get nuke-tipped V2's and it's all over) The Germany (with Italians) that would pour into Russia would be a whole 'nother animal than what we look back on historically; more men, more (and better) machines, more supplies and not having to defend their back or flanks while fighting.

I don't know man...it's all speculation but I feel (and don't seem to be alone) that the ripples in the pond of our sitting out WWII move out a good deal further than you seem to think they would.
 
#299
#299
I wanna play.

therealUT said:
This is correct; however, at the time, the history of the Bolsheviks demonstrated by their precipitous withdrawal in WWI they did not wish to engage in external warfare. I really think that it surprised not only Hitler but the majority of the German military elite when the Soviets committed to fighting, as opposed to just rolling over and surrendering.
Click to expand...

It could also be argued that the enormous amount of Soviet soldiers surrendering fostered a false sense of superiority the fueled Hitler's obsession with Moscow, therefore causing him to divert segements of his southern army away from the most logical mission, i.e. the resouce rich south. Big blunder.

As to nbakerld's opinions on the ETO: the public may have been isolationist but American foreign policy was not. Do you know what the lease part of the LLP concerned? It wasn't that we leased equipment to the UK. Rather, it was agreed upon that in exchange for equipment the US gained access to UK naval stations worldwide. This is key to the reason we now dominate the globe. From c. 1500 to WWII, international trade was predominantly via the Atlantic. Control the Atlantic, control the world. This is why the Brirish Empire succeeded. Post modern trade began slowly but surely to include Asia and the Pacific. At some point at the end of the last century, for the first time in history, trade to Asia via the Pacific surpassed Atlantic commerce. We control sea routes east and west. That is why we are the sole Superpower. It is my opinion that US involvement in WWII would have come about in whichever manner presented itself. Call it a 'War Against Fascism', 'War to Save Humanity', or whatever you wish. The main goal was ultimately domination by the US. I realize this takes huge and looong term outlook on the part of our gov't but it is plausible to believe there are ideas such as this developed in Washington.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top