I was just thinking, because of all the debated being argued about how we’re handling the war against Islamism, and the tactics and strategies involved, what if you could be transported back to world war two just when it was kicking off, how would you regard Allied tactics and strategies then? Would you support them? Would you regard Hiroshima as a defining moment, when we crushed the totalitarian enemy?
I would support them because I would probably know that the Axis was a very real and immediate threat to the western world. I don’t support allied tactics now, because Islamic terrorism is nothing like the threat on the world that Naziism was.
We live in a climate of fear largely maintained and manufactured by our govornments. Sure people might die in terrorist attacks, but the vast majority of westerners are in absolutely no danger whatsoever, certainly not the danger we’re led to believe.
In retrospect, it’s likely the Allied strategic bombing campaign didn’t achieve the results it was claiming. And if it wasn’t achieving results, the morality of deliberately targeting the enemy civilian population is questionable. But at the time, the details were not available, so the policy could be defended and I probably would have supported it (assuming I had been asked).
I think the Italian campaign was a strategic mistake and the evidence was there at the time. There were also a number of other mistakes made, but most of these were made by local commanders and were recognized as errors at the time.
50 years later, it’s easy to say that. But at the time, most Americans refused to see any threat at all. Roosevelt’s campaign in 1940 promised “I say it again and again and again–our boys will not be sent into any foreign wars” cite
Many didnt want to pass the lend-lease act (it was bitterly controversial) because Americans were so blind to enemy threats.They did not want to even send money and supplies(and nobody even suggested sending soldiers) to let Britain protect herself against a “rogue dictatorship” .
There are real parallels with today’s war against terror.
Many Americans in 1940 , like many today, honestly felt that they were in no danger personally, and that cruel regimes on the other side of the world(even though they proudly proclaimed their intentions to conquer the world ) were not serious problems.
When Japan attacked us, it was a “9/11” experience of rude awakening, and America rose to the challenge… We were only attacked on one front, by one enemy, but we chose to fight a “preemptive” war against two enemies on two fronts.
No one said , as Kerry does now , --“it’s the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place”. Kerry proudly repeats that OBL attacked us, not Saddam Husein, so we shouldnt be fighting him. But FDR never said that Japan attacked us, not Hitler, so we shouldnt fight him
When Bush expanded the war across the border into Iraq, many Americans denied the need to attack.But in WW2, we expanded the war, not just across a border region, but across the whole globe, to defeat the axis of evil.
Fortunately, FDR identified the new reality, realized the danger, and reacted before it was too late. Bush did the same thing. He may have sat there reading “my Pet Goat” for 14 minutes too long, but when he woke up, he saw a new reality, and understood that times have changed.
(And yes, I know that the comparisons aren’t perfect–WW2 was fought by governments with uniformed soldiers, not terrorists.And GWB is no FDR. But there is some validity to comparing how Americans responded after Pearl Harbor with how we responded to 9/11)
I think you may be comparing initial conditions and final conditions here - namely the end of WWII with what might be the beginning of a wide-spread conflict now. Would you say the same about Nazi Germany in 1937 (just before the “reposession” of Czechoslovakia); or in 1933, when Hitler was still only just consolidating his hold?
Note: You may be right that the current global scare about “Islamic Terror” is far overblown - but only time will tell.
Note 2: I’m not claiming that all Muslims are terrorrists. I’m not claiming all terrorists are Muslim. But there very definitely is such a thing as “Islamic Terrorism” (which is the overlap of Islam and Terrorism) - and I, for one, am quite worried that it could develop into a “West” vs. “East” conflict if not handled properly. And don’t ask me what “properly” means… I don’t know!
Dani
The key word here would be ‘axis’. The US didn’t start wars with random states that had nothing to do with the one that had attacked them.
It’s not just the comparisons that “aren’t perfect”. Your statements are also incorrect.
American Declaration of War on Germany
We did not start a “preemptive” war with Germany. They declared war on us first.
You can make an argument that we would’ve declared war on them eventually, even if they hadn’t declared war on us, but let’s not live in some makebelieve world and pretend that the threat that the Germans posed to us was somehow unclear as the events in Europe progressed. Germany, by their own admission, was a threat to us.
Thanks for the cite(I didnt realize that we declared war on Germany only 4 days after Pearl Harbour). But I think it still supports my claim. The US could have limited its response to attack by Japan with a declaration of war against Japan.
If, as you say, the threat posed by the Germans was “clear”, why did the US make virtually NO preparations for war during those long years of gathering threats?
Americans did not see the foreign dangers as relevant. It took a leader of FDR’s foresight to see that England and France were worth defending. Many Amercans were content to stay out of the fight.
The Germans said so, but many Ameiricans didnt believe it.
It was a vague threat, by an enemy far away.
Like terrorism today.
chappachula, I am not sure you are entirely aware of the facts:
-
As was pointed out, GERMANY DECLARED WAR FIRST. I’m not sure how much clearer that can be stated. Germany was in a military alliance with Japan. Germany declared was on the United States. Germany announced its intention to wage full scale war against the United States. What else can you possibly ask for in terms of a nation constituting a threat?
-
Germany and the United States had in fact been openly shooting at each other in the Atlantic for some time prior to Dec. 11, 1941. German submarines had attacked and destroyed American ships, both civilian and military, prior to Dec. 7, all open acts of war. Frankly, the United States was far too patient with Germany.
-
The notion that the USA was not preparing for war is preposterous. They started a peacetime draft, you know, before entering the war. Military spending shot up in the years prior to the USA entering the war. The USA was preparing quite enthusiastically.
What exactly is “vague” about the world’s foremost military power announcing that it is at war with you?
Knowing what I know now, I would have opposed the internment of Japanese-Americans. But sadly, I can’t say that I would have without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. If I’d lived in California in 1941, been raised to have vague doubts and suspicions about “those people”, and after Dec. 7 had read newspaper accounts (only later refuted) claiming that Japanese-Americans in Hawaii had set out markers for the Japanese attack planes, I too might have considered the internment a necessity of crisis. 
To flip the OP around a bit, if we fought WW2 the way we fight wars nowadays, we’d all be speaking German.
Could you imagine if today’s crowd of naysayers and ne’r-do-wells was around during the time of the 1000-bomber raids? The headlines after the Battle of the Bulge would have been, ‘IS OUR DEFEAT IMMINENT?’ How about that though Japan attacked us, we focused on Germany? Scandal!, they would cry. We need to go after Tojo, and Roosevelt is trying to distract us with Hitler!
Good times would have been had by all, but we would have lost. Well, ‘not won’ may be more accurate (reached a negotiated settlement with Nazi Germany), which is about as good as losing.
Sure, but simple yes-or-no question: Would you have kept the bombing campaign going anyways?
And a quick comment about the whole ‘Germany declared war on us’ bit: Yes, technically true, but America was a defacto ally of Britain (rightfully so), well before the declaration of war. It’s not like we were just bopping along, minding our own business, and wham! Germany declared war. Nah, we shoveling supplies and war material over to GB at quite a prodigous rate well before the official declaration of war.
The difference, chap, is that in 1941 Hitler was an active threat, while in 2003 any threat Hussein posed to anyone outside his own borders (and to the Kurds within them) had been effectively contained.
Ah, but I bet that every time he mentioned Pearl Harbour in a speech, he made sure to get Hitler’s name into the same sentance so that a good proportion of America wound up thinking that it was Hitler that had attacked Hawaii…
In the days of the much-lamented National Lampoon one cartoonist once did a piece on “If WWII had been fought like Vietnam.” One panel showed a peace march of young Americans (hepcats in zoot suits) carrying signs reading “Onay Oremay Arway” and “Peace is jake, war is jive, let’s cook our eggs on the sunny side!” Hollywood celebrities visit Germany and are given a tour of Dresdent after the saturation-bombing. “Hawaiianization” of the Pacific war proceeds apace. The last panel, of course, shows Washington, DC as it is today, with all the street signs in German.
Note also that germany attacked our coastal shipping almost immediately with unrestricted U-boat warfare.
Germany declared war on us first, and attacked first. They were also a very real threat.
Given that we didn’t have smart bombs, body armor, satellite recon and the like, I think massive civilian casualties were inevitable. This is also the case given that we were fighting an entrenched enemy with an active industrial sector which was occupying large swaths of two continents. I would have opposed the intentional mass casualty attacks on civilian targets (eg Dresden), but I wouldn’t expect the Army to magically retake Europe and Asia without having to get their hands dirty in the process.
I thought it was the war against terrorism. :rolleyes:
This is more than a little bit ridiculous. You’re comparing completely dissimilar situations. So if you mean ‘If we fought WW2 the way we’ve fought assymetric wars against local insurgencies in the recent past, we’d all be speaking German’, then I guess you might be right.* But that’s sort of like saying ‘If we tried to subdue a trained and armed swordsman using the same technique we’d use to subdue an insane 12-year old with a shiv, we’d end up sliced wide open.’ If you look at conventional military engagements in the recent past, such as GW1, I think you’ll find that the tactics and strategies used would have been nicely effective during WWII. If you want to argue that we ought to be fighting the insurgency in Iraq in the same manner in which we would fight a large-scale conventional war, well, then you have either no understanding of what is required to defeat an insurgency, or you’re advocating putting down the insurgency by main force, which history teaches requires near-genocidal levels of force (compare and contrast the successful Roman suppression of the Jewish Revolt, and Napoleon’s unsuccessful attempts to pacify Spanish partisans, just for two examples. There are dozens of others.) And finally, if you’re trying to suggest that if the handling of the WWII had been criticized the way the handling of the war in Iraq has been that WWII would have been lost, you’re frankly a loony. If WWII had been handled the way the war in Iraq has been, i.e., with blind adherence to ideology and military doctrine, refusing at every step to learn from mistakes and adapt tactics on the fly, and steadfastly believing your own propaganda about the state of the enemy’s morale, then we’d all be speaking German. The criticism has nothing to do with it.
*Abstracting away the minor logistical problem the Germans might have had trying to launch a transatlantic invasion of North America without any staging points on the west side of the ocean.
For all your babblings about Jewish revolts and whatnot, you do provide an excellent example of what I am talking about. We left Saddam in power at the end of GWI. We backed down and just ‘freed’ Kuwait. That logic would have had us stopping at the Rhine and the Phillipines (We’ll ‘contain’ the Germans and Japanese!). It is that surrender-monkey attitude that I am talking about; that stopping short of the killing blow (in the name of peace!) that dooms every single war we have fought since the end of WW2.
If you want to start a ‘What are effective means of fighting insurgencies’ thread, go for it.
If the similarities are that close, why do you think it is, then, that we were capable of governing postwar Germany and Japan, but appear incapable of governing postwar Iraq? :dubious: