There’s a difference? 
You know, I may have started the discussion on sinking ships.However I was referring to sinking merchant ships.
Few people realize that Jeffrey Dahmer was also synthesizing anthrax in his home, and was responsible for the cancellation of “Gunsmoke.”
Better not contradict me, or I’ll say you’re pro-Dahmer.
Forget Dahmer. How about Dr. Lector? Now that cat had style.
To continue the hijack, Hitler was under no requirement to declare war on the US. Had the US (or any other hypothetical third party) attacked Japan, then the treaty would require German intervention (and if the US attacked Germany, likewise Japan was treaty bound to come in). However, in the event of a Japanese attack on the US, there was no treaty based reason for Germany to go to war. (Heck, given that the Japanese weren’t giving Germany any love wrt the USSR one could argue that holding back out of spite might make sense.) It’s almost pathetic the lack of cooperation and coordination between Japan and Germany during the second world war. Declaring war on the US made sense to Hitler/Germany, as bizarre as it sounds to us today. From the German point of view the freedom of action granted by belligerency was of far greater import than any trivial short term increase in American contributions to the battle of the Atlantic or purely hypothetical long term production/material issues. For the Germans the whole shootin’ match was based on there only being an easily handled short term (which would be from my point of view the sole meaningful point of overlap with the current administration).
But Bricker: Do you feel that the reasons Roosevelt laid out for going to war (or more accurately, for supporting the allies and the USSR prior to our own belligerency) were misleading? Did he make shit up in order to justify his military build up?
I feel sorry for Bricker.
It looks like this is one of those rare occasions where ‘argument by tangent’ and ‘victory through attrition’ doesn’t seem to be working out for him.
Don’t worry, dude. Eventually people will get sick of pointing out the same flawed logic, and they’ll stop linking the cites that destroy your arguments. Then you can declare victory and move on.
-Joe
Well, there was the “Hitler’s Secret Plan to Nazi-fy Christianity,” which was a total fabrication.
Beyond that, I’m not sure how to split “reasons FDR gave for going to war,” apart from “things FDR said to convince us to go to war.” Example: FDR says Germany has sunk our destroyers, therefore we should be prepared to go to war. But he doesn’t mention that they were sunk after firing the first shot against German U-boats. Does that count?
Thanks.
Hey, just to remind me, and further humiliate me, can you post one or two of those cites that destroy my argument?
So the principal reasons for lend-lease and our “navy second to none” were German religious policy and various naval shenanigans, not Axis foreign policy?
Hush, now! Next you’ll be suggesting that annexing the Sudetenland, invading Poland, the defeat of France, the Battle of Britain, or Operation Barbarossa did anything to demonstrate the aggressiveness of the Third Reich. Don’t be ridiculous! Everyone knows that Adolf was safely contained by the other European powers after having been defeated decisively a decade earlier. Sure, there were the costs of ongoing air patrols, and yes, the German people were suffering from the brutal sanctions regime, but really, Adolf’s Germany was a paper tiger with no real ability to threaten its neighbours. The European Theatre of WWII was an entirely unnecessary war that occured solely because of FDR’s warmongering.
Or something like that.
Pfft.
Why the hell would I do that? It would be me wasting time linking stuff and you dancing around about how that’s not what you really meant.
No thanks. You can’t play your little attrition game with people who refuse to feed you.
-Joe
:eek: Five pages! Jeez, how did that preposterous, negligible brainfart of a premise spawn a five-page thread?! How bored are you guys?
Oh, wait . . . that should be we guys, shouldn’t it . . .
Not to worry, BG. We have already reached Godwin, and Merijeek has decided that he would rather unilaterally declare victory than actually back anything up or debate.
Sock puppets, **ad hominem*s, the usual accusations of bad faith - all that is needed is the standard “you are just as bad as december” and the thread will have reached its natural conclusion.
Godwin? I was thinking there ought to be a corollary to Godwin: any time you compare Bush to FDR, you automatically lose the debate.
Daniel
I’ll bet you just loved Saffire’s latest in Newsweek, then.
Oh, and Shodan, if it would make you feel better, instead of declaring victory I could make a banner that says “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”.
For some reason you seem to have a much easier time unquestioningly accepting things when they’re written on a banner.
-Joe
Actually, you might do better to actually mention some of the cites that so devastated Bricker’s arguments, instead of throwing around thinly veiled accusations of trollery and then changing your tune immediately.
Ah well. As I mentioned, we have achieved Godwin, and therefore nothing remains but the usual self-congratulatory circle jerk.
Hand lotion and tissues for the Usual Suspects, then.
Regards,
Shodan
FWIW, It is relevent that recently historians have been revisiting the subject of how exactly the US and Germany came to be at war. Please see:
http://www.shafr.org/newsletter/2002/jun/hitler.htm
http://www.shafr.org/newsletter/2004/april/hill.htm
In fine: Roosevelt claimed that the Germans were deeply involved in and indeed were the masterminds of Pearl Harbor. Germany declared war on the US only becasuse they were convinced FDR would do so first; moreover, after 12/11/1941, Germany attempted to “take back” their declaration, and FDR would have none of it.
There is indeed one view that the US constitutional system is overburdened with checks and balances.
It is indeed refreshing to see a solemn voice giving strident repudiation to the ‘due process’ model.
‘Sovereignty of the people,’ ‘consent of the governed’ ‘due process of law’, these sound quaint already, don’t they?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Yes, that’s the reason you can’t post those devastating cites.
Oddly, this new-found nobility did not prevent you from adding a post to CLAIM those cites existed. It’s only when you actually have to provide them that the refusal to “feed” me becomes an imperative.