Well, Martini? [American attitudes toward WWII]

[AClockworkMelon]

@villa

Nah bollocks. If we are getting all hindsightish, the problem was that Versailles was too soft on the Germans, and that Germany should have been dismembered and prevented from reforming as a single nation state after the Great War. But that is a very different argument.

The Germany of WWI and the Germany of WWII were hardly even the same nation to begin with.

[XT]

@villa

 Nah bollocks. If we are getting all hindsightish, the problem was that Versailles was too soft on the Germans, and that Germany should have been dismembered and prevented from reforming as a single nation state after the Great War. But that is a very different argument. 

Probably a discussion for another thread, but I think that not only would this have been next to impossible to accomplish, but it would have been highly unfair, and ended up with even more resentment and violence in the end. Basically, had the French and British tried to impose such a harsh peace they would have needed to send in their armies…and both countries were on the brink of collapse. They didn’t have the ability to send in the troops they would have needed to accomplish something like this, not and support them too. The Germans were already starving at this point, and the French and Brits were on the brink.

Since we can use hindsight to guide us, we know that Europe’s great depression collapse was even worse then the US, so, even if by some miracle they COULD have sent sufficient troops AND figured out how to supply them post WWI, it wouldn’t have lasted even a decade. Then what would have happened? Nazi party without even having to bother with the silly Republic first? Something worse? The entire region would have been a powder keg, just waiting for a spark. And now the French and British would have been even more drained by trying to support troops in these occupied regions to boot. Hell…it’s possible that the French government, especially, might have fallen, and gods know what would have emerged.

-XT

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@villa

Nah bollocks. If we are getting all hindsightish, the problem was that Versailles was too soft on the Germans, and that Germany should have been dismembered and prevented from reforming as a single nation state after the Great War. But that is a very different argument.

Well shoot, why not stop Germany from uniting in the first place in the late 19th century?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@villa

Of course it is hindsight talking. As I said, I can understand not being involved. Not being involved made a lot of sense. So did not stopping Hitler in 1936. But, given that hindsight, the British & French were wrong in not taking strong action in the mid-30’s. And the US was wrong in sitting the war out until 1941.

With that hindsight, you see, it wasn’t “Europe’s struggles” it was humanity’s struggles.

Then maybe the Brits shouldn’t have screwed things up so much in the first place if there was so much riding on it.

[villa]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Well shoot, why not stop Germany from uniting in the first place in the late 19th century?

Well, preventing it being so Prussian dominated might have been a good move. I’m just not sure it would have been possible, though.

I just don’t believe in the standard argument that it was an overly harsh Versailles Treaty that led inevitably to the rise of Hitler and World War II. Germany imposed a much harsher peace on Russia, and therefore presumably would have proposed similar terms for France (though terms with the UK would have been kind of irrelevant, as there would be no way of enforcing them).

The war had been fought on French and Belgian soil. Germany’s industry was largely intact, and leaving Germany with this industrial base as well as a feeling that its army had never been defeated would have been a more rapid rise to expansionist militarism, not the avoidance of it.

@Mr. Miskatonic

Then maybe the Brits shouldn’t have screwed things up so much in the first place if there was so much riding on it.

I wish I had said the British and French had screwed things up in the mid thirties. If I had, I presume I would have said something like…

@villa

But, given that hindsight, the British & French were wrong in not taking strong action in the mid-30’s.

There’s plenty of blame to go around for how we chose not to deal with German militarism and the rise of the Nazis. Much of it can be traced back to a fear of socialism. We didn’t have the military power or will to squash Germany, but we could send people to attempt to crush the Soviet revolution?

The question was why people think the US should have been involved in the war against one of the most evil regimes of modern history from the start. I think I provided an answer to that.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@villa

Well, preventing it being so Prussian dominated might have been a good move. I’m just not sure it would have been possible, though.

Well color me confused but I fail to understand why Prussia influenced Germany is such a problem on its own. Frankly, the real problems came with the gross overreaction to their initial flexing of their muscles.

I just don’t believe in the standard argument that it was an overly harsh Versailles Treaty that led inevitably to the rise of Hitler and World War II. Germany imposed a much harsher peace on Russia, and therefore presumably would have proposed similar terms for France (though terms with the UK would have been kind of irrelevant, as there would be no way of enforcing them).

In terms of previous treaties it was not very harsh, yes, but this was a different era and the winners needed to acknowledge that the peace process for this war should not involve dozens of ‘winners’ drooling over a piece of a non-existent pie- in part thanks to England & France’s excessive promises. Everyone was hoping to go back to the old ways not realizing what a sea change they had wrought.

The war had been fought on French and Belgian soil. Germany’s industry was largely intact, and leaving Germany with this industrial base as well as a feeling that its army had never been defeated would have been a more rapid rise to expansionist militarism, not the avoidance of it.

All the more reason to not make such a hash of thing during the peace process.
I wish I had said the British and French had screwed things up in the mid thirties. If I had, I presume I would have said something like…

There’s plenty of blame to go around for how we chose not to deal with German militarism and the rise of the Nazis. Much of it can be traced back to a fear of socialism. We didn’t have the military power or will to squash Germany, but we could send people to attempt to crush the Soviet revolution?

We tried that. There were some doughboys in Vladivotok. Not a popular move.

American Expeditionary Force, Siberia

[RickJay]

@Martini_Enfield

And the US wouldn’t have even been fighting Germany if not for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

Just to be really, really nitpicky, the U.S. naval base near Honolulu is called “Pearl Harbor,” with no u, irrespective of what country you live in and what version of English you speak. It is a proper noun and is correctly spelled in only the American manner.

[Martini_Enfield]

@RickJay

Just to be really, really nitpicky, the U.S. naval base near Honolulu is called “Pearl Harbor,” with no u, irrespective of what country you live in and what version of English you speak. It is a proper noun and is correctly spelled in only the American manner.

You guys spelt it incorrectly when you named it.

[Otara]

“Just to be really, really nitpicky, the U.S. naval base near Honolulu is called “Pearl Harbor,” with no u, irrespective of what country you live in and what version of English you speak.”

The French call New Zealand ‘Nouvelle Zelande’, rather than what we call it, as just one example of thousands. Give it up would be my advice.

Other countries frequently call place names in their own language or spelling, Pearl Harbor is nothing special in that regard.

Otara

[Cicero]

I’m still trying to work out what this thread is about.

[RickJay]

@Martini_Enfield

You guys spelt it incorrectly when you named it.

I’m Canadian.

[Little_Nemo]

Was China, Korea and the Phillipines embargoing them too? I mean according to you, these countries must have ahd the natural resources that Japan wanted. Why couldn’t they trade for these resources from their neighbors?

China was at war with Japan so it wasn’t trading with them. Korea had been occupied by Japan since 1910. And the Philippines were an American territory at the time and were therefore part of the American embargo. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands (its government was in exile in London at this point) joined the American embargo.