Of course we had to fight it. Those damn Germans bombed Pearl Bailey, what else were we supposed to do?

Perhaps there would not have been a WW2 if Woodrow Wilson had kept his campaign promise and stayed out of WW1.

"What is not good for the swarm is not good for the bee."

People need to stop asking whether going to war is "just." It isn't. It's bad. And whether or not going to war is necessary, depends on who you talk to. For example, what if no one in the history of the world ever went to war?

Bukharin: Perhaps there would not have been a WW2 if Woodrow Wilson had kept his campaign promise and stayed out of WW1.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him.

/Roosevelt and Taft '13!!

Sun God: People need to stop asking whether going to war is "just." It isn't. It's bad. And whether or not going to war is necessary, depends on who you talk to. For example, what if no one in the history of the world ever went to war?

then we would have to win by being the first to assemble all the pieces too the SS. Or by a majority UN vote.

IBM, Ford, General Motors, Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, the American eugenics movement, lots of Americans contributed to the rise of Nazism.

George Bush's grandfather and other American industrialists tried to overthrow the US government and install fascism in this country.

TheShavingofOccam123: IBM, Ford, General Motors, Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, the American eugenics movement, lots of Americans contributed to the rise of Nazism.

You forgot William Shockley, who won a portion of the Nobel Prize in 1956 for co-inventing the transistor and who sorta kinda founded Silicon Valley. He was a big fan of eugenics.

Uh what exactly do you think would have happened had England fallen? Germany would have been free to put its entire forces into russia and could have won there. While it was a few years off most likely, Goering was looking for ways to get his planes over New York. There already were u-boats in new york harbor.

RobertBruce: Uh what exactly do you think would have happened had England fallen?

Probably nothing. What do you think would have happened? Now, if Scottish people had had the gonads to invade England, what do you think would have happened?

/moot. Guinness

Lots of theory, lots of conclusions based on printed media from the time. Hitler invaded Poland remember? You remember what happened to the Jews there? He invaded Norway and Denmark and then Belgium and the Netherlands before grabbing France. Remember Dunkirk? Seems that Mr. Baker believes that if a nation takes steps to resist a potential invasion they are at fault in causing the war. Or that government leaders should turn a completely blind eye to the obvious plans for conquest of a potential enemy. Mein Kampff remember? Don't take any steps to prepare for war, just let the enemy walk in. Don't plan for conflict, just sit back and take it when it comes.

Wonder if Mr. Baker has burglar alarms? Nah. That would mean he causes the burglar to take things. Yeh I know it's a stretch, but where's the line?

Quote.
While the book does not speculate about how the Allies could have responded to the horrors of the Third Reich short of waging total war, Baker maintains that any other scenario would have been preferable to what unfolded in the 3½ years that follow the book's final entry.
UNquote.
Any other scenario? Like a Nazi world conquest? Bah. That's stupidity.

Germany and Japan were aggressors, that much is certain. If the Treaty of Versailles was more helpful to Germany in their post-war reconstruction (socioeconomically) and less insulting, the environment for the rise of Nazi-Germany may not have existed. In that sense, you may be able to blame earlier administrations from both nations for not recognizing the dangers their actions posed and put forth some effort to correct it during the 1920s. Hindsight is 20/20, however, and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (and Germany attacked pretty much everyone else) and we ended up with war.

Yes, it was necessary. Japan had ambitions to invade the west coast of the U.S., Germany the east. It was defensive.

Although it would've been interesting to see the two meet in the middle and find out what would've happened.

Skail: Germany and Japan were aggressors, that much is certain.


This. There's something to be said about the idea "Don't start fights, finish them."

The US today could learn a little from that.

Rohnbo: Remember Dunkirk? Seems that Mr. Baker believes that if a nation takes steps to resist a potential invasion they are at fault in causing the war. Or that government leaders should turn a completely blind eye to the obvious plans for conquest of a potential enemy. Mein Kampff remember? Don't take any steps to prepare for war, just let the enemy walk in. Don't plan for conflict, just sit back and take it when it comes.

Again, this.

If you've ever watched anything about the Unibomber, you know that he was eventually caught because his brother recognized his writings and stepped up. He knew what his brother was doing was wrong, and he moved to stop him from doing it.

Seems to me, in some cases, war is necessary. WWII was one of those times. Any man who controls forces who have the specific responsibility of slaughtering a specicic group of peoples must be stopped, just like any serial killer. It is the responsibility of the entire world to stop him.

Which is why we should be in Rwanda and GTFO of Iraq. (The dictator is gone in Iraq, if they want to go back to killing each other, it's got nothing to do with us.)

My grandfather tells a lovely story about hearing FDR on the radio a few weeks before we went to war. FDR: "I do not want wah, Eleanor does not want wah, therefoah, there will be no wah."

Bukharin: Perhaps there would not have been a WW2 if Woodrow Wilson had kept his campaign promise and stayed out of WW1.

Bingo!

/or Yahtzee! Whichever you prefer.
//Even in WWII, we should have concentrated on defeating Japan before we turned our attention to Europe. Reykjavik-Berlin is just as close as Tinian-Hiroshima.

//Even in WWII, we should have concentrated on defeating Japan before we turned our attention to Europe. Reykjavik-Berlin is just as close as Tinian-Hiroshima.

Whaaaaa?

Japan was effectively neutered as a threat only six months into the war, following the battle of Midway. Japan's ability to wage an offensive and expanding war was seriously curtailed with the near destruction of their naval power. The rest of the war on that front was an ugly, nasty protracted mopping up that required years of hopping from island to island, but the main threat was already contained. (If you want to talk about their land war in China or the Philippines, that was awful, but didn't really threaten us.)

On the other hand, it took almost two years to be able to mount an effective invasion of Europe (starting in Italy), needing to build up a large armed and trained presence, after defeating Germany in Africa. Ignoring Europe, or even just fighting a holding action would have been disastrous, allowing Germany to consolidate its gains and further its atomic weapons research.

Perhaps the farking stupidest headline ever.

As long as we acknowledges that evolutionists are to blame for the Holocaust, nothing else really matters.

I blame Bush. Prescott Bush that is, W's granddaddy...

For example, what if no one in the history of the world ever went to war?

That's like saying, what if Liberals weren't so delusional?

If the US had not intervened in WWI, the Germans would have won and Hitler would never have come to power.

co-conspirator: Whaaaaa?

Japan was effectively neutered as a threat only six months into the war, following the battle of Midway. Japan's ability to wage an offensive and expanding war was seriously curtailed with the near destruction of their naval power. The rest of the war on that front was an ugly, nasty protracted mopping up that required years of hopping from island to island, but the main threat was already contained. (If you want to talk about their land war in China or the Philippines, that was awful, but didn't really threaten us.)

Would Germany have defeated the Soviet Union without direct U.S. involvement? If you've been involved in Fark threads, you know the argument from a fair number of people is that the U.S. was unnecessary in the European theater -- the complaint is that we somehow arrived "late," and that while we shortened the war, we weren't the deciding factor (in this view, the USSR would still have defeated Germany).

If that is the case, not attacking the Axis in Europe would have been in our long-term interest -- we could do what the Soviets did with the Kuril Islands, and liberate Europe when the defeat of Germany was a foregone conclusion.

Even if Germany were to have an edge in battle over the Soviets, it is unlikely they would defeat the Soviet Union before we defeated Japan, and we would still have had an atomic weapon and a means of delivery before they did. Without the U.S. involvent earlier in the war, more German troops would have been shifted to the Eastern front, making the Western one that much less defended -- the Germans were more interested in killing Russian civilians than they were in making conscript armies.

When the first atomic weapons became available in the west, command-and-control in Berlin could have been effectively wiped out. Further, to quote one source:

Production estimates given to Sec. Stimson in July 1945 projected a second plutonium bomb would be ready by Aug. 24, that 3 bombs should be available in September, and more each month - reaching 7 or more in December. Improvements in bomb design being prepared at the end of the war would have permitted one bomb to be produced for every 5 kg of plutonium or 12 kg of uranium in output. These improvements were apparently taken into account in this estimate. Assuming these bomb improvements were used, the October capacity would have permitted up to 6 bombs a month. Note that with the peak monthly plutonium and HEU production figures (19.4 kg and 69 kg respectively), production of close to 10 bombs a month was possible.

It's hard to say how long a defiant Germany would have been able to hold out under such an onslaught before surrendering. The destruction of Berlin would probably be sufficient if Hitler were killed, but certainly by the end of the year all war-making capability would cease to exist.

/And we wouldn't have had to worry about a Cold War for the next 50 years.

I hope that Wikipedia's servers are ready for the sudden influx of World War II-related searches that the scholars posting in here are going to require.

ww1 and ww2 was all about securing israel for the zionists.

it was many years in the works before the turn of the century.

-plans within plans....

hitler was a patsy.

-he was an insane psychopath...but a patsy nonetheless.

Sun God: For example, what if no one in the history of the world ever went to war?

What if people could fly? What if panda bears could speak English?

Much of that argument hinges on Germany not having to fight a two-front war.

drevil877: What if people could fly? What if panda bears could speak English?

"Your panda wants bamboo." Seriously, though, everyone knows they only speak Chinese.

There's no doubt that much of the war was poorly run on the Allied side, but because mistakes were made doesn't mean the intent of the war was immoral.

WWII was just a continuation of terrible handling of WWI's peace. The idiots in charge weren't smart enough to remember the lesson of the Caudine Forks, so they had to re-learn the lesson for everyone.

uropaul: then we would have to win by being the first to assemble all the pieces too the SS. Or by a majority UN vote.

Peacemonger.
/One window seat to Alpha Centari

If South had won the war of Northern Aggression we would have been part of the Axis powers.

Oh, My Dog...



I'll just let Bluto answer this one...

Bauer
ww1 and ww2 was all about securing israel for the zionists.

it was many years in the works before the turn of the century.

-plans within plans....

hitler was a patsy.

-he was an insane psychopath...but a patsy nonetheless.
Of course that was a long time ago, it would be unheard of for Zionists to trick a nation into war these days, right?

Shaggy_C: If South had won the war of Northern Aggression we would have been part of the Axis powers.

Looks like someone's played a bit too much Hearts of Iron 2.

the old crow: uropaul: then we would have to win by being the first to assemble all the pieces too the SS. Or by a majority UN vote.

Peacemonger.
/One window seat to Alpha Centari

First thing I thought of:

Man has killed man from the beginning of time, and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why should the future be different?

~Col. Corazon Santiago "Planet: A Survivalist's Guide"

IgG4: I blame Bush. Prescott Bush that is, W's granddaddy...

What about Ted Kennedy's daddy? He didn't want to stop Hitler either.

Smellvin: Looks like someone's played a bit too much Hearts of Iron 2.

I don't know what that is...but watch the mockumentary C.S.A. Link (new window).

uropaul: then we would have to win by being the first to assemble all the pieces too the SS. Or by a majority UN vote.

I always liked the plot of "Robot Jox". Battles between giant robots to decide international conflict.

Listen, you can go steps back in time and find fault with everything. If the US hadn't intervened in WWI and helped to set the treaty of Versailles as it was, maybe Hitler wouldn't have come to power because Germany might have won the war. And maybe if Canada hadn't had such good relations with Britain, Canada wouldn't have contributed to WWI and Germany definitely would have won. And if France had built a huge wall around its borders, maybe it would have been more difficult for Germany to invade, and then maybe they would have lost the war sooner, and the Treaty of Versailles might not ever have been needed, and Hitler wouldn't have come to power, and we wouldn't have had WWII. See how ridiculous this gets?

You can try to pinpoint root causes as much as you want, but in the end, Germany invaded Poland, not the US and Britain. Saying Churchill and Roosevelt were as much to blame makes about as much sense as saying that Ford and the city of Los Angeles as much to blame for drunk-driving deaths as are the idiots that drink and drive. OH NO Ford made an automobile! OH NO Los Angeles' streets aren't drunk-driver friendly! Please.

Geez, some of you people really do hate Jews don't you?

Just War (new window)

WWII? Yes.
War on Terror? No.

Wow, WTF.

The Germans got screwed by the treaty of Versalles, that much is true. However, there was also a lack of its enforcement in the early 30s that led to France surrendering faster than usual.

As for WW2 itself, Sure, maybe we could have gone across the sea sooner, but get this, the conservatives of the day wanted nothing to do with Europe and the rest of the world. Can you imagine that? Conservatives wanting to NOT USE POWER in something that WASN'T THEIR BUSINESS? As opposed to, say, invading a country in hopes of getting cheaper oil, only for the price of oil to eventually jump $100?

glassa: Geez, some of you people really do hate Jews don't you?

All this 'zionists caused the World Wars!' makes me embarrassed to read Fark.

Smellvin

Caudine Forks

Could you explain further? As a Classicist, I'm curious about this comparison.

Bauer: ww1 and ww2 was all about securing israel for the zionists.

it was many years in the works before the turn of the century.

-plans within plans....

hitler was a patsy.

-he was an insane psychopath...but a patsy nonetheless.

Sammy Davis, Jr. won WW2

GavinTheAlmighty: Listen, you can go steps back in time and find fault with everything. If the US hadn't intervened in WWI and helped to set the treaty of Versailles as it was, maybe Hitler wouldn't have come to power because Germany might have won the war. And maybe if Canada hadn't had such good relations with Britain, Canada wouldn't have contributed to WWI and Germany definitely would have won. And if France had built a huge wall around its borders, maybe it would have been more difficult for Germany to invade, and then maybe they would have lost the war sooner, and the Treaty of Versailles might not ever have been needed, and Hitler wouldn't have come to power, and we wouldn't have had WWII. See how ridiculous this gets?

You can try to pinpoint root causes as much as you want, but in the end, Germany invaded Poland, not the US and Britain. Saying Churchill and Roosevelt were as much to blame makes about as much sense as saying that Ford and the city of Los Angeles as much to blame for drunk-driving deaths as are the idiots that drink and drive. OH NO Ford made an automobile! OH NO Los Angeles' streets aren't drunk-driver friendly! Please.

But, you're forgetting the fact that some people (mainly liberals) just want to find a way to blame the United States for everything, no matter how far fetched it is.
And yet these people claim to be patriotic & love the US. Sure, and I have a beachfront home in Missouri.

Bauer: ww1 and ww2 was all about securing israel for the zionists.

it was many years in the works before the turn of the century.

-plans within plans....

hitler was a patsy.

-he was an insane psychopath...but a patsy nonetheless.

GavinTheAlmighty: Could you explain further? As a Classicist, I'm curious about this comparison.

In certain circumstances, such as war, the "middle road" doesn't cut it. You either conquer or foe completely and leave them incapable of making war or you create a friendly peace with no hard feelings. Anything else will probably lead to more war and, potentially, your own ruin.

/Silly Samnites.

Shaggy_C: glassa: Geez, some of you people really do hate Jews don't you?

All this 'zionists caused the World Wars!' makes me embarrassed to read Fark.

And from what I can tell, it's DEMOCRATS who are the anti-Semites. It's disgusting!
And people call ME a bigot when I point out the faults of the Muslims!

Smellvin: GavinTheAlmighty: Could you explain further? As a Classicist, I'm curious about this comparison.

In certain circumstances, such as war, the "middle road" doesn't cut it. You either conquer or foe completely and leave them incapable of making war or you create a friendly peace with no hard feelings. Anything else will probably lead to more war and, potentially, your own ruin.

/Silly Samnites.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
~Sun Tzu

/what is victory in Iraq again?