Should The USA Have Entered WW2 In Europe?
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">If we didn't have to?</div> The USA was attacked by Japan, which ended our isolationism and thrust us into the Pacific war. A few days after our declaration of war against Japan on December 8, 1941, the Nazi's declared war on America (honoring their Axis pact with Japan). Only after this happened did we reciprocate and begin the fight with Germany as well.
What if we had not?
In modern times, it's been pointed out endlessly that the US had no business fighting in Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc. because there was no direct attack on us first from those nations (select inhabitants perhaps, but not the nations themselves). Did we have any business involving ourselves in the European theater of WW2 if the Germans had never declared war on us and simply continued their continental conflict? Was it enough that we had a moral obligation to the lives of those the Nazi's were ending (this did not cause us to enter for 2 years, after all)? Does an evil dictatorship's existence alone justify our entry? Suffice to say, without our troops and transhipped equipment, all of Europe would be speaking German right now (yes, even the Russians - without our logistical aid, their scorched earth retreat from the western republics would have doomed their later counterattacks completely and they would have fallen in 42-43 at the latest). And how is this war different from any other we waged, without the German declaration?
You probably already know my feelings on this, so I'll wait a bit and respond later to all your points.
What if we had not?
In modern times, it's been pointed out endlessly that the US had no business fighting in Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc. because there was no direct attack on us first from those nations (select inhabitants perhaps, but not the nations themselves). Did we have any business involving ourselves in the European theater of WW2 if the Germans had never declared war on us and simply continued their continental conflict? Was it enough that we had a moral obligation to the lives of those the Nazi's were ending (this did not cause us to enter for 2 years, after all)? Does an evil dictatorship's existence alone justify our entry? Suffice to say, without our troops and transhipped equipment, all of Europe would be speaking German right now (yes, even the Russians - without our logistical aid, their scorched earth retreat from the western republics would have doomed their later counterattacks completely and they would have fallen in 42-43 at the latest). And how is this war different from any other we waged, without the German declaration?
You probably already know my feelings on this, so I'll wait a bit and respond later to all your points.
Comments
Here's why.
Imagine this, imagine pearl harbor never happening, then imagine the US retaining its neutrality...Never to attack the Axis forces, and our friend Hitler invents the nuclear weapon. GG life....GG.... I realize this isn't much of a post, but I don't think I need to ramble on about how bad it would've been if we hadn't been involved. Scary thought.
Hitler and the japanese were trying to take over the <b>whole</b> world, you think the europeans would be the only one speaking german? How would you feel if Hitler had taken over Europe as an american today?
Of course they should have entered! Not only for the sake of the poor jews! But for their own good. (As usual if I may add)
Ahh, but Pearl Harbor does happen. We just don't have Germany declare war on us, dragging us into the european conflict. We still probably would have developed the A-Bomb for that conflict, and the Germans never were very serious about creating one after British/Norwegian commando raids destroyed their only heavy water supply in Norway.
How is this different than Iraq though, for example? Should we have preemptively struck the Nazi's based on their treatment of their neighbors and own population, plus the fact that they had weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological, plus your point to planned nukes)?
1) Japan's attack on Pearl Habour was <b>not</b> (as many people believe) "A stupid thing, only made us pwn them" kind of thing. The japanese had almost no resources at that time, especialy with the war on China as well, so they needed to take more. America's outlying Islands were the easiest and best targets, so they took them. It really was pure luck that some American ships were not in Pearl Habour at the time of the attack. If Pearl Habour had not have happened, it is likely that the Japanese would have taken the outlying islands anyway. So, considering all options, attacking Pearl Habour was probably the best strategic attack of the whole war (or one of them at least).
2) America needed a way of saying "We're here and we can still kick your ****, so don't try anything" to Russia, and this presented the perfect oppurtunity to do so.
3) It's not widely known, but Japan and Germany were actually working very closely together to create a nuclear weapon. The trouble was, neither country had the resources to make it on their own, they needed each other's help (Japan had the nuclear material, U -237 or something like that, and germany had the oil, metal etc). I'm not sure if America knew this at the time, but if they did, it's a good reason to attack.
4) Pollitics, there's only so long you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalalala" while your allies are being beaten to a pulp.
5) The fact that, it is likely that Hitler would not be happy with Europe alone. It really would not be long before he started looking at america and wondering when, where and how to attack. It is better to get in on the fight when you have allies left to help you, rather than wait until you're dragged in by yourself.
6) Financial reasons. I'm not too sure about this one, but i'm fairly sure America was better off money wise than it was before the war. Maybe because of all the arms they sold.
Those are my ideas anyway. I know some of the facts are probably wrong, but on the whole they are right to the best of my knowledge.
probably the biggest mistake for the axis was attaking pearl harbour, which is kind of ironic, because it was also the amreican'b biggest blunder too.
Before the USA became the world police, they would only attack if thier national security was threatened. If Germany had just kept to europe, the usa might not have attacked. If, however, the germans were victorious in europe and set their sights across the pond, there is do doubting the amricans would have attacked, if only in self defence. europe might have said while you are over here, do you mind liberating us, and i am sure they would have tried. It would be intersting to try to work out what life would be like if germany had won the war.
Ahh, but Pearl Harbor does happen. We just don't have Germany declare war on us, dragging us into the european conflict. We still probably would have developed the A-Bomb for that conflict, and the Germans never were very serious about creating one after British/Norwegian commando raids destroyed their only heavy water supply in Norway.
How is this different than Iraq though, for example? Should we have preemptively struck the Nazi's based on their treatment of their neighbors and own population, plus the fact that they had weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological, plus your point to planned nukes)? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The iraqi's have no chance of taking over the world, or even the middle east. Alone anyway. They would require HUGE amounts of help, and as far as I recall we have yet to discover any type of WMD...if I'm wrong about the WMD correct me so I don't feel like an arse. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
And that is the main difference between the Axis (because it wasn't <b>just</b> Germany, a common thought that started WWII in the first place) and Iraq today: The Axis posed an immediate threat to the whole of Europe, and a threat to the world if allowed to continue unchecked. Iraq doesn't really have the capacity (or at least, we thought they did, but it's rapidly turning out that they didn't) to launch an attack on any country not within 300(or sommat, i'm not a missle expert. I like penguins though) miles of itself.
As to the rest of your point, why would they need an ICBM in order to deny the world of 90% of its energy supply and plastics? A truck going off over an oilfield with a nuke, or saturating the area in sarin nerve gas, or covering the area in anthrax, is certainly just as good and costs almost nothing. How is the Axis' threat to the world any less than one country holding all of the world's oil hostage?
Regardless, let's stay on the topic at hand, please.
As to the rest of your point, why would they need an ICBM in order to deny the world of 90% of its energy supply and plastics? A truck going off over an oilfield with a nuke, or saturating the area in sarin nerve gas, or covering the area in anthrax, is certainly just as good and costs almost nothing. How is the Axis' threat to the world any less than one country holding all of the world's oil hostage?
Regardless, let's stay on the topic at hand, please. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I kinda deviated, sorry. It ties in to my point.
I do wholly agree how Iraq WAS a threat, indirect nonetheless.
However. The Axis was especially notorious for the terrible things Hitler did, and wanted to do. Which is why I am certainly glad the US entered europe.
The analogy works though. Similar situation at hand, but handled two different ways.
Would those millions and millions of deaths be worth living in a utopia? What if they were the last casulties of war ever? Would it have been justified then? It could be said the same as Animal Testing, we kill thousands of animals so that one day, we might be rid of the diseases and have no more deaths.
So, in the short term, yes, America was justified entering the war and ending the suffering (the people who have seen the less...."Child Friendly" pictures of concentration camps will agree with me here). But in the long term, maybe all we (the allies as a whole, i'm not American) did was re-set the war clock, because things aren't as unstable now as they were then, but we're far from world peace.
- X_Stickman
**EDIT**
Just some grammar/spelling corrections (and i bet i've still missed some).
I don't know whether USA should have morally speaking intervened, maybe, but at least for my country it didn't make a difference really. During WW2 when ruskies attacked finland and when the allied refused to help us, only Germans offered help. So for me, my life quality economically would be either better or the same without USA going on allied side.
My 2 cents, though I didn't answer the question directly but it's hard to answer <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Would those millions and millions of deaths be worth living in a utopia? What if they were the last casulties of war ever? Would it have been justified then? It could be said the same as Animal Testing, we kill thousands of animals so that one day, we might be rid of the diseases and have no more deaths.
So, in the short term, yes, America was justified entering the war and ending the suffering (the people who have seen the less...."Child Friendly" pictures of concentration camps will agree with me here). But in the long term, maybe all we (the allies as a whole, i'm not American) did was re-set the war clock, because things aren't as unstable now as they were then, but we're far from world peace.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll be honest and say I don't understand what you mean by this. You seem to say that it would be better if Germany won, and that it's better that we fought Germany. You say that the suffering would justify the results, and that the suffering was unacceptable.
Color me confused.
Just a minor correction as I'm feeling a bit anal today (no jokes please <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
This should read (it's that little thing that powers the earth and is the source of <b>many</b> plastics, oil). Minor, I know, but it caught my eye <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> (I once worked with a plastic that was derived from tree sap--much to the chagrin of tree huggers. Great stuff. It had an extremely high melt temp that made the machine feel like an induction oven. but I digress)
It should also be noted that there was a movement in the U.S. that was sympathetic to the Nazis and/or believed that the U.S. should stay out of the war. Their voice wasn't nearly as vocal as it would have been today due mainly to the lack of technology.
That's offtopic though. Sorryyyy.
The biggest mistake the axis made was invading russia.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find that a lot of people think pre-emptive warfare of any kind is automatically wrong<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed. A spoiling attack, as it's sometimes called, is actually a sound strategic and tactical tactic. The problem comes when people just start attacking everyone willie nillie and _calling_ it a pre-emptive attack.
I think we need to state clear goals.
Are we going after terror? Good, fine. But if we were, why aren't we in Saudi Arabia? Political reasons...
Are we going against the spread of WMD? Good, fine. But if that was the case, we'd be all up in north koreas face. (just to name one)
Are we going after old enemies and loose ends? Maybe; cuba is an example. We were discussing going after cuba recently, not sure what they decided.
I think it's a mix of all of them. We're going after terrorists, but selectively. We're going after WMD's, but selectively. We're going after old enemies, but selectively. Which really defeats the purpose and any possibility of reaching any single goal. As an example, I'll tell you about my dog. She's got fleas. Collars don't work, drops don't work, baths don't work. So we manually go in, find them, and pick them out and kill the bastages with boiling hot water. It's been months of doing this almost every day. Obviously we haven't succeeded. If we miss just one, she will be infested again totally within a week. So obviously we can't take one flea off and say we're making progress. You do it all the way, or you don't do it at all. Doing it half assed won't get you anywhere but deeper in a mess. Concentrating on afganistan, syria, iraq, and iran is great; but you can't ignore saudi arabia (for example) and say you're making america safer versus future attacks.
I agree with getting involved in WWII. Whether we like it or not, the world IS out there, and it DOES concern everyone, including us. Going totally isolationist is an idealist concept that simply does not work. You cannot just ignore the problems and hope they go away. Getting involved with world matters however does involve some risk. We will make enemies, and we will make friends. So our nose might be bloodied sometimes, but you just keep moving because just turning your back on the issues means that when you eventually DO have to face them, it will be overwhelming.
I agree with getting involved in Iraq as well, for one reason; the Iraqi people. They've suffered under his rule for far too long, without the chance to have their own say.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
As to the rest of your point, why would they need an ICBM in order to deny the world of 90% of its energy supply and plastics?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. In any case, regardless of what anybody says, Iraq could have done damage to the mainland US. Period. They don't need ICBM's. They don't need bombers that can reach us. All they need is a ship, a nuke, and a handy US port. Or, a terrorist cell willing to do it for them (believe me, there are plenty). All of that means they can kick us in the nuts, and have plausable deniability in the end. Even if they don't do it directly, as Monseur said, they can deny much needed oil and related products which is an indirect way of doing plenty of damage.
The major difference between gulf war 2, and world war 2, is the viewpoint of other countries. France, for instance, has vested economic interest in the Saddam Regime. Ousting saddam means they don't make a profit anymore, and understandably that is not something they want if they can help it. Whereas in WWII, right and wrong were clear; in gulf war 2, the media plays the situation. Essentially, a case can be made for either side; was it justified or was it not. It just depends on your personal feelings on the matter. I believe it was.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yep, all oil-plastics could be replaced with soy-oil and whatnot. Basically we don't need oil for anything anymore. We already have non-gasoline engines and plastics but we don't use those because there is no practical need and oil companies etc. jsut don't plain want them. Need is the best motivator for inventions<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if we decided to drop petroleum products completely, it would take decades to make the switch fully.
Back on topic, anyone?
edit: damn, burncycle totally beat me to all my points, and with better replies. Kudos, good sir. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The main difference happens to be the most confusing one. In World War 2 there were clear-cut enemies. With the War on Terror, and the second gulf war, the seem to meld together at points. Countries supporting terrorism, etc. However I feel its dangerous to make generalizations, like "Oh hey, he sat next to bin-laden, lets off him" Sorta stuff. Saddam was an evil, evil man. Much like hitler was.
World war 2 in my eyes was justified for the reasons we have all pointed out.
I feel that the second gulf war, has not YET been justified because I would've gone about it differently. If I am detering off topic too much just slap me up, Im trying to leave the analogy intact at the same time.
The biggest mistake the axis made was invading russia. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nitpicky: The worst mistake was Hitler promoting himself as the head-strategist of the army. For example going for stalingrad instead of Moscow etc.
And US+UK couldn't have won without Russia either, so it's not as simple as "USA saved the world". Strong red army was half of the victory. Western allied couldn't have beaten Axis on their own and Russia couldn't have beaten Axis on its own.
Whenever someone starts talking about WW2 I just have to jump in. Meh favourite subject <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
There was an <a href='http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717' target='_blank'>interesting article in the economist</a> a little while ago that pointed out the coming of the end of middleast, perhaps in our lifetime: the end of the oil strangehold. What will happen when there is no strategic reason to police the area anymore? They are one trick ponies, and without an oil stranglehold, they have nothing to offer the world at all. Would we still care? Germany held no strategic resources for us as a nation, and yet we still felt that supporting her enemies was a good idea. We still would have had the same trade with Germany had they won the war - customers are still customers, and the politics of the region would have affected 1940's USA very little. Does there come a time when a moral decision outweighs the reasons not to go to war? We killed a few thousand Iraqis at most in occupying Iraq - we killed 100x times that in one night in Dresden Germany, on purpose, as part of our effort to end their country's warfare. Your thoughts?
Hitler went insane near the end of the war and follied big time on both fronts, thus screwing himself royaly. Oh right no more offtopic.
My feeling on Iraq is that it stood as a symbol for the fundamentalist movement, not because of Saddams beliefs but because it was a relatively powerful nation that hated America and propegated violence against western culture. Also taking down countries that harbor terrorists and provide them with funds and weapons can only be good, because while there maybe people that hate us they'll have no one to to give them the power to do anything about it.
The situation today would be the same if say Switzerland was provding massive amounts of funds and arms to the Third Riech. Would it be right for the US to ignore something like that just because it isn't a direct attack on them? And before you spout off about there not being any proof of Iraq helping terrorists I'll tell that there isn't supposed to be, they aren't exactly buying RPGs with Visa.
Note - Russia would have been eliminated in 1942 regardless of Stalingrad, without US logistical assistance. They owe the US their existence just as much as anyone owes them.
The biggest mistake the axis made was invading russia. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nitpicky: The worst mistake was Hitler promoting himself as the head-strategist of the army. For example going for stalingrad instead of Moscow etc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say the worst mistake the Axis made was not preparing it's forces for a Russian winter. But i digress...
Monse, my point doesn't make clear sense. That was, in fact, part of my point. It depends entirely on your viewpoint whether America was "right" to interfere. From Hitlers side, they are "morally" wrong, because hey, he's ridding the world of a great evil. He probably couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. But from the jews point of view, they are the saviors. This is a very, very complicated discussion.
My other point... well, i can't really think of a way to put it clearer. In the short term, yes, America was right to intervene to end the suffering. But what if they hadn't interfered? What would the world be like 50-100 years on if Hitler had won the war? Would it be better? German doctors have long been respected for being advanced and insightful (For instance, the Nazi's discovered that Smoking actualy caused cancer before anyone else even thought about it). And with all the world under one control, would there be an end to war? An end to world hunger, to racism?
It's hard to argue this point, as this is all speculation. if Hitler had won the war, the French resistance might have teamed up with resitances from other countries, led a rebellion that eventually ended in nuclear war, and the world may have ended. It's hard to predict the future of a thing so heavily reliant on human emotions.
In short... i'd say that America was justified in it's attack on Hitler. What they were doing to the people in the concentration camps (yes people, it wasn't just jews, there were gypsies, black people, some prisoners of war (but not many of them) etc). was totally in-humane. But it is rumoured that Hitler didn't know the full extent of the suffering of the victims in the Concentration camp, Georbills (omg, i can't spell that) or Goerring (or that) i think handled that side of it all. Hitler had a pretty interesting life if you study it in detail (he once studied as a student in a Bhudist temple, where he first saw the Swastika).
Blah..... I can't make a point without coming up with another one that contradicts it. This is a deep discussion if you strip it down.
Note - Russia would have been eliminated in 1942 regardless of Stalingrad, without US logistical assistance. They owe the US their existence just as much as anyone owes them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Germany wouldn't have attacked Russia, they would have Europe under their control. No two front war. Same thing if USA wouldn't have attacked. No two front war and Russia would have been fupped uck.
Argh, now we stop de-railing.
Edit: and Russia actually got their act together during/after stalingrad. Mostly because Germans hadn't prepared for winter war.
Argh, now we stop de-railing.
Edit: and Russia actually got their act together during/after stalingrad. Mostly because Germans hadn't prepared for winter war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's sort of a moot point. I'm not trying to argue hypotheticals beyond the issue of the US joining the war. For example, if the Germans had destroyed the British army at Dunkirk, their invasion of Britain would have been so easy they could have done it via rubberducky. Then you have no staging area for US troops, no way to supply the Soviets via the Murmansk convoys, and Russia goes down like a circus seal in the first year of the invasion purely from starvation alone (remember - most Soviet food came from the areas that Germany occupied within the first couple weeks of the invasion - after that, it was mostly from America). Germany owns everything from Portugal to the Chinese border, has all the oil (discovered and soon to be discovered) in the mideast and Russia, and can put all of the east in a huge vice between them and the Japanese.
So if we skip the whole what happened and how in WW2 and just agree that without USA Axis would have had an awful lot of power, two things would have happened:
a) Axis gets stronger year by year, trades with the USA and in the end we have a stronger EU and USA living in world peace
b) Hitler goes mad(or more mad, or is the right form madder?) and tries to conquer the whole world with his most advanced, most resourceful and biggest army ever. In the end the whole world is under one rule.
The way we get to A and B are sloppy, but once we are there, would it be so bad? Is it worth it to save lives now at the cost of future generations peace(hypothetical)? Moral dilemma and we can debate that to the end of the world. My opinion is what is done is done and it's good the way it happened, but it wouldn't have been so terrible if the whole world/eurasia-africa would be in peace.