View Poll Results: If it was Nazi Germany all over again, America should

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • Butt in

    43 70.49%
  • Butt out

    7 11.48%
  • Specifically ......

    7 11.48%
  • No clue

    4 6.56%
Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 256

Thread: If

  1. #231
    Professor
    Leo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,674

    Re: If

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    My apologies. I stand corrected. Reckon that balances out with all the trade our corporations were doing with Germany, so that made us neutral enough in Europe.

    Doesn't change the oil embargo, though.
    No apologies necessary.

    I guess I am just a bit over-sensitive on this issue, as so many Americans (not you, I hasten to add) take the view that the USA joined battle with the Nazis for the sole altruistic reason of saving Great Britain from German occupation. I am not by nature a nationalistic person, but I tire of this repeated misrepresentation, and sometimes over-react. So perhaps it is I who should apologise.
    I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. E.M. Forster

  2. #232
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    Re: If

    Not surprising that most people ant to butt in. The only time I would support involvement is if we were to be provoked. We can't blow up every bad doer and unliked person in the world.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  3. #233
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: If

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    I guess I just see them as innocent people, and don't consider nationalism when doing that kind of math.
    Maybe that makes you a better person or a more idealistic person, but I look at it like this. The American government, which is empowered to conduct foreign policy and wage war, was formed to look out for the liberty and best interests of American citizens. If there is not a pressing American interest in stopping this hypothetical nation, then American government should not spend American dollars and shed American blood. That is the responsibility of the nations who do have a pressing interest.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  4. #234
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: If

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    And those battles would most likely have gone the allies way, the perfect time to jump in would have been after they attacked Russia, the Nazi's fatal mistake.
    From the standpoint of purely advancing American interests, I disagree. Doing so would have surely spared Russia much of the destruction they suffered and put them in position to counter attack much more quickly and drive even deeper into Europe, moving the Iron Curtain even further west. Pretty much we jumped in at the perfect time. The Soviets had been ravaged, but were still standing and inevitably going to turn the tide. They had absorbed the worst of the German offensive. The Germans had spent their best troops and most of the resources trying win in Germany. We were able to step in against a weakened foe who already had one juggernaught force pressing them from the east, and Germans still put up one heck of a fight. Imagine fighting them before they had been weakened at Stalingrad, Kursk, and the other major eastern battles.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  5. #235
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: If

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    If the Allies--Britian, France and The United States--had faced off with Germany in 1938, the war would have not only been shorter, but cost fewer lives.
    The problem is you're Monday morning quarterbacking now. Yes, the Allies could've strangle Nazi Germany in its infancy, but why would they have? By the 1930s many British leaders had come to realize that Versilles was a horrible treaty and Germany had many legitimate grievances. Many people were in favor of letting the Germany rejoin the Great Powers of the world and letting the Germa people that were seperated from the fatherland be peacefully restored. After all what allied interest is there in preventing Germans who want to be a part of Germany from rejoining Germany? Big issue Britain had with Hitler in the 30's wasn't what he wanted, but how he went about it. Any German nationalist leader would've had the same demands and aims - rearmament, anchuluss with Austria, the return of the Sudetenland, and the return of the Danzig corridor.

    Its arguable that the west would've been best served by letting Hitler achieve those goals and then letting him and the Soviets have their inevitable confrontation - exhausting each other and allowing the West to step in at the end and dictate a peace that kept both Germany and Russia in check.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  6. #236
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,613

    Re: If

    Are we forgetting about that other nation that had a part on WWII, you know, that island nation with imperialistic goals that attacked a US naval base in Hawaii?

    Could we have appeased them as well?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  7. #237
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: If

    Yes, if we had just let them have China and the rest of Southeast Asia - and maybe Australia and New Zealand - we probably could have at least temporarily avoided war. That's the true appeaser position.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  8. #238
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: If

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Are we forgetting about that other nation that had a part on WWII, you know, that island nation with imperialistic goals that attacked a US naval base in Hawaii?

    Could we have appeased them as well?
    Once we were attacked, the answer is obviously no. The only appropriate response was to mobilize the full weight of American military and economic power towards destroying them.

    Prior to Pearl Harbor, that's an interesting discussion. Our polices towards Japan were very antagonistic and made conflict almost inevitable. Was that a wise policy? Would Imperial Japan have been content to carve out an empire within their natural sphere of influence on "their" side of the Pacific and leave American holdings alone? I tend to think not. I think that eventually Japan would try to push the US out of the Pacific and war would've been the result eventually, so our policies that hampered their expansion and pushed them towards war with us sooner rather than later were probably sound policies.

    Though I might add this thread was about a hypothetical Nazi like regime rising up, not about the global stage and international politics of the 1930s.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  9. #239
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,613

    Re: If

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    Once we were attacked, the answer is obviously no. The only appropriate response was to mobilize the full weight of American military and economic power towards destroying them.

    Prior to Pearl Harbor, that's an interesting discussion. Our polices towards Japan were very antagonistic and made conflict almost inevitable. Was that a wise policy? Would Imperial Japan have been content to carve out an empire within their natural sphere of influence on "their" side of the Pacific and leave American holdings alone? I tend to think not. I think that eventually Japan would try to push the US out of the Pacific and war would've been the result eventually, so our policies that hampered their expansion and pushed them towards war with us sooner rather than later were probably sound policies.

    Though I might add this thread was about a hypothetical Nazi like regime rising up, not about the global stage and international politics of the 1930s.
    True, hypotheticals historical facts are not the same.

    Plus, I'm not so sure that there isn't a Nazi like regime already in the form of the Taliban. Where it differs from the hypothetical is that the Taliban hasn't taken over any modern powerful nations, nor is it likely to.

    Further, there is another factor that wasn't present during the rise of the Nazis, and that is the reality of nuclear weapons.

    So, we have an interesting conundrum, from an hypothetical standpoint at least.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #240
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: If

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    So you find no moral obligation to your fellow human beings to stop the merciless slaughter of millions of innocent people?
    I'm not saying yes or no yet, but millions had to die to stop it (WWII). We stepped in to stop the ambitions of Saddam Hussein, and look at the thanks we got. We knew about mass graves beforehand (and there were complaints); during WWII they didn't know about the mass killings till later in the war (but they were heroes). You can't have it both ways, care for your fellow humans in one case and not in another, can you? Data shows us that some can.

    Just saying.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •