• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If

If it was Nazi Germany all over again, America should

  • Butt in

    Votes: 36 73.5%
  • Butt out

    Votes: 4 8.2%
  • Specifically ......

    Votes: 6 12.2%
  • No clue

    Votes: 3 6.1%

  • Total voters
    49
There's no reason a well informer Special Forces unit could not take out the leader or even a well thought out, well planned tactical missle strike.That being said, if all else failed, I would not sit idly by. Something would have to be done, if, for no other reason, that it would spread.
 
Last edited:
Because we shouldn't tolerate genocide.
How would we be tolerating genocide by watching other people end it? That's like saying an NYC Police officer is tolerating murder when he doesn't police the streets of Chicago. If the Chicago police can handle it, let them. If other people in the region can handle the new Nazis, let them.
 
How would we be tolerating genocide by watching other people end it? That's like saying an NYC Police officer is tolerating murder when he doesn't police the streets of Chicago. If the Chicago police can handle it, let them. If other people in the region can handle the new Nazis, let them.

And if they can't handle it, we should get involved. Without US intervention, WW2 would have ended very differently.
 
If events were unfolding in a foreign land exactly as they unfolded in Nazi Germany, what would you recommend?

Use the opportunity to mobilize our nation for a wartime economy, thus boosting aggregate demand and jobs while kicking ass. A wartime stimulus, if you will.
 
And if they can't handle it, we should get involved. Without US intervention, WW2 would have ended very differently.

This.

54321
 
You mean, if we knew that a nation was conducting, or wanted to conduct, a genocide, should we (The UN, not necessarily the USA) intervene?

Something like Bosnia?

Yes.
 
And if they can't handle it, we should get involved. Without US intervention, WW2 would have ended very differently.
Yeah, that was my point, which is why my original comment was "go in at the last second like we did in WWII". In other words, it's not "obvious" that we should go in because other people may be able to handle it (at this point they probably can).
 
Yeah, that was my point, which is why my original comment was "go in at the last second like we did in WWII". In other words, it's not "obvious" that we should go in because other people may be able to handle it (at this point they probably can).

The OP was if the situation was exactly the same then yes it would be obvious. We should have gotten involved sooner, less innocent people would have been killed.
 
Yeah, that was my point, which is why my original comment was "go in at the last second like we did in WWII". In other words, it's not "obvious" that we should go in because other people may be able to handle it (at this point they probably can).

"You can always count on America to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities."
 
The OP was if the situation was exactly the same then yes it would be obvious. We should have gotten involved sooner, less innocent people would have been killed.
And more American lives would have been lost.
 
And more American lives would have been lost.

That's not a logical assumption, the war may/probably would have ended sooner, so an increase in casualties shouldn't be expected.
 
If events were unfolding in a foreign land exactly as they unfolded in Nazi Germany, what would you recommend?


They were, at least similar enough for great concern: It was called Iraq under Saddam. We intervened and quite possibly saved the Mideast from being the flashpoint center of a new world war.

Many people and nations have condemned us for this. It tempts me to say "Fine... let the next proto-Reich slide and see how everyone enjoys World War III while we sit at home playing Jeopardy."

(I have a strong suspicion the "next one" may be Iran, but it is too early to be sure. Actually, "too early to be sure" is probably a good time to nip it in the bud.)
 
The danger of Nazism came from the fact they ruled an extremely powerful industrial nation with an excellent military. There have been plenty of rules as bad or worse who simply didn't have the power to cause the same kind of worldwide damage. The calculus requires two parts 1) the strength of the country involved 2) the aggression of the ruling power.
 
That's not a logical assumption, the war may/probably would have ended sooner, so an increase in casualties shouldn't be expected.
No, it's a pretty logical assumption since we would have had to participate in more than just the final battles. We would have been in longer and more people would have died. This was a huge war, an earlier presence wouldn't have been an automatic sooner ending.
 
No, it's a pretty logical assumption since we would have had to participate in more than just the final battles. We would have been in longer and more people would have died. This was a huge war, an earlier presence wouldn't have been an automatic sooner ending.

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.
 
If the US was threated I would say yes, but if not, the answer is no.
 
What works for you? I'm really just wondering about if we knew a nation was attempting what Hitler attempted, - okay, so given today's technology. Would we attempt to intercede.

I won't name them because people tend to **** a brick when certain countries are called out - but I see some countries right now doing some of the things he did: demanding concessions from other countries, requiring "more" be given - marking another people or countrymen as an enemy. . . while at the same time suffering from internal issues and having to continually purge their own selves from those who rise up against their actions from the inside out.

And at the same time managing to gain sympathy and support from others who aren't "inside" the loop.

When we were fighting Hitler some of his attrocities weren't known to us until *after* we infiltrated their occupied terrority - and some of that didn't come out until after he was dead.

One such country, in my view, is being constantly assisted by us and forever garishing everyone's support and compassion when they don't deserve it - but their enemy is on the list, too :shrug:
 
I thought the only reason we actually went to war was because Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Even though it was the common talk, no one was willing to go to war over some guy burning Jewish people. And since hiding whole race-burning death camps is a bit hard, I'm sure US intel definitely knew about it. I think the US saw an opportune time like any one else would and entered when the bet was hot.

What would I do now...hard to say. In the state our country is in right now, could we really afford going up against a REAL aggressor state with equal or superior military capabilities?
 
I would support a combination of hardware/funding for the guys fighting and cruise missiles/bombing. No troops on the ground unless genocide starts happening.

Except, that we didn't know that genocide was happening, until troops had already conquered Germany.

Plus, you can't win a war without putting infantry soldiers on the ground. Libya is proving that.
 
I disagree. If such a regime were to exist again and steadily gain power, it would be easy to believe that they would one day week to gain dominance over us.

Do you support a preemptive strike against Iran?
 
International law forbids assasination.

Fancy that.

Allied snipers wanted to take advantage of the capabilities of sniper technology, but were forbidden to do so. There's a little scene in Saving Private Ryan that references this, but I've heard the same thing from veterans of the war.

I've heard the reasons for it, but when its all said and done, leaders need to be safe from each other. Dying is for the peasantry. Deciding where and when they die is the job of kings.

No such international law existed during WW2.
 
So you find no moral obligation to your fellow human beings to stop the merciless slaughter of millions of innocent people?

We didn't get involved in WW2 to stop the Holocuast, as we didn't know it was even going on. Hell, most Germans didn't know it was going on.
 
If the US was threated I would say yes, but if not, the answer is no.

The US was definitely threatened by Nazi Germany, whether or not our leaders realized it before the Japanese attack. Iraq? No, Iraq was never a threat to the US, and its leader was just a tinpot third world dictator.
 
We didn't get involved in WW2 to stop the Holocuast, as we didn't know it was even going on. Hell, most Germans didn't know it was going on.

There is evidence to the contrary on both accounts. However, many complications were abound regarding intervention to prevent it.
 
Back
Top Bottom