Could this generation stomach the carnage of world war 2? - Page 11

aegyptos · 05-18-08, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Britain and France didn't put Hitler in power. They were the only nations to stand up to him, though, and Canada. (It certainly wasn't Canada's fault).

France and Britain didn't put Hitler in power. Why is it there fu

France never did stand up to him in any meaningful way and Britain didn't start to stand up to him until after the fall of France in June, 1940. Too bad they didn't stand up to him in 1934 when they had the power to take him down without dragging us into their affairs.

Doc Howl · 05-18-08, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awesome!

First we defeated Japan, occupied Japan until 1950 and then vowed to never let her rebuild her military and then we changed our position and thought it best due to the fears of communist expansion in the region and then back and forth, back and forth... etc. We didn't really have all the answers after 1945 with the growing threat of communism, but we took action though.

Link to us fighting insurgents in Japan in 1950?

partier9 · 05-18-08, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aegyptos

France never did stand up to him in any meaningful way and Britain didn't start to stand up to him until after the fall of France in June, 1940. Too bad they didn't stand up to him in 1934 when they had the power to take him down without dragging us into their affairs.

When German forces entered the Rhineland, all france had to was resist and germany would of been crushed then and there, but hey its France

bub · 05-18-08, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aegyptos

You live there. Do I really need to explain this to you? Because France and Britain are next door to Germany. German rearmament directly threatened them. German rhetoric made it clear that Hitler intended war. The United States was not an ally of the French and British before the war nor was it threatened by Germany. We were isolated from European madness by the Atlantic Ocean and protected by our large navy. France was not isolated from anything being a front line state with a worthless and pusillanimous ally in the British. I think also its incorrect to describe the French foreign policy before the war as isolationist. French diplomats were active in eastern Europe trying to create an alliance that would threaten Germany from the rear. This alliance was called the Little Entante. France was also the possessor of a large oversea empire. Nothing isolationist about those things. America really was an isolationist state. For America, political isolation was the correct foreign policy with regard to Europe.

With "isolationism", I meant that they did not get involved in German politics, just like the USA cut itself from the rest of the world.

France built the Maginot Line, a huge fortification. They believed that it would be enough to stop the Germans, and once it was built they felt safe and did not care too much about Germany anymore.

I could make the same remark about the USA letting Japan getting a huge navy (it took decades). They were no less threatening than Adolf: they were at war with China and had very clear expansionist ambitions long before Pearl Harbor.

Not very different from France and UK letting Germany re-arm!

bub · 05-18-08, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by partier9

When German forces entered the Rhineland, all france had to was resist and germany would of been crushed then and there, but hey its France

If you're so smart why don't you move to France? You could be their president...

aegyptos · 05-18-08, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

I could make the same remark about the USA letting Japan getting a huge navy (it took decades). They were no less threatening than Adolf: they were at war with China and had very clear expansionist ambitions long before Pearl Harbor.

Not very different from France and UK letting Germany re-arm!

You could make a remark like that but you'd be wrong. Japan was a formal ally of the British until 1922 and gained their naval expertise from the Royal Navy. Japn was also a signatory to Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 that limited Japan to 60% of the warship tonnage allowed the United States. No appeasment there. American diplomats relegated Japan to 2nd class status. Even at the height of its naval power in the spring of 1942, Japan did not possess an instrument that would allow them to threaten the US mainland. Your argument is not well thought out and founders on the facts but it shows a lively interest. I encourage you to read deep in this area. I can recommend some excellent texts if you desire to do so.

partier9 · 05-18-08, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

If you're so smart why don't you move to France? You could be their president...

Im to young to be there president.

Also my french sucks

the makeout hobo · 05-18-08, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awesome!

First we defeated Japan, occupied Japan until 1950 and then vowed to never let her rebuild her military and then we changed our position and thought it best due to the fears of communist expansion in the region and then back and forth, back and forth... etc. We didn't really have all the answers after 1945 with the growing threat of communism, but we took action though.

And that has what exactly to do with the comparison between WWII and the Iraq War?

Quote:

The current conflict in Iraq hasn't even scratched the surface yet compared to our wars against communism which ultimately we won. I would argue that the verifiable results like we had in world war 2 are the same as our "forever wars" against communism after 1945. It's too early to measure the conflict in Iraq as a "forever war" and even if it is we clearly have examples showing that if we stay the course we ultimately will prevail. Walls come down, the iron curtain comes down, etc. etc.

It comes with action it seems...

What examples show that if we stay in Iraq long enough, we'll prevail? I'm not seeing any examples of that.

And you mention the Iron Curtain, and the time after 1950. After 1950, we had almost no military deaths, save a few specific wars where public opinion was a very large factor (viet nam). I may also remind you that we never actually won a hot war against a communist state. Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, those were all draws or losses.

Care to try again?

aegyptos · 05-18-08, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

What examples show that if we stay in Iraq long enough, we'll prevail? I'm not seeing any examples of that.

The American Revolution to start with and the Philippine Insurrection for another.

I wouldn't call what's happening in Iraq a war. It doesn't rise to that level of intensity. More of a police action really. The Philippines are a pretty good comparison for the Iraq conflict. And the Moros were even muslims as well.

Awesome! · 05-18-08, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

Link to us fighting insurgents in Japan in 1950?

Well thats my point. Would you rather fight insurgents now or something as large as WW2 in the future? It pays to stop the ambition now, like we did with Saddam, the Serbians etc. At a fraction of the cost.