-->
@Greyparrot
That's true, but I fail to see what it has to do with anything.
Bodies.
Posts
Total:
97
-->
@SirAnonymous
Because there wouldn't be any "cold" war, and all the GDP wasted on bombs and planes would have been manufactured into tractors and refrigerators had we never entered the war. It's also likely we would have been given favored trading status by both Germany and Japan.
-->
@Greyparrot
1. I didn't phrase it well, but my point was that the Cold War would have quickly turned into WWIII.
2. While the GDP used for war would not have been wasted in this scenario, there would also have been no post-war economic domination. Also, the industrial base expanded greatly during the war.
3. Why on earth would we want favored trading status with a country that perpetrated the Holocaust or a country that let its military commit barbaric acts, most infamously when they massacred a few hundred thousand people in Nanking?
-->
@SirAnonymous
There also would have been no Korea or Vietnam. Russian meddling would have been as irrelevant then having lost the war as they are today having the GDP of Canada.. with Germany checking their dominance... Japanese would have been a check against Chinese dominance in Asia, and Japan has always been slightly less xenophobic than China regarding trade.
Under every metric USA would have been far stronger, wealthier, and safer pursuing America First policies.
-->
@Greyparrot
No, but there would very probably have been a third world war. Korea and Vietnam, however, would be occupied by a vicious and rather racist Japanese Empire. However, this assumes that Germany and Japan would actually have won. Had we stayed out of it, the USSR would have inevitably crushed Germany, so the Cold War would have been even worse due to a far more powerful Russia.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Lol no there wouldn't be a 3rd world war because America first would never allow it.
And Russia wouldn't have had as nearly as much success without USA lend/lease.
America first would also mean no sanctions on Germany.
America first would also have meant an early peace with UK, so Hitler would have been far more capable of meeting the Russians in battle.
America being the world police creating power vacuums was a bad idea in 1940 and it's still a bad idea today.
-->
@ebuc
You were pointing out the bombs as though they were a Republican thing that we need to justify.
-->
@Greyparrot
And that blasted Andrew Jackson, always going to war. ;)
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's not exactly what happened. We cut off their oil because they were invading China without justification and committing heinous slaughters and mass rapes. This was after they had already stolen a province from China by turning it into a puppet state under the pretense that it was an independent country. We had every reason to cut off their oil. In fact, it could easily be argued that it would have been immoral to not cut off their oil supply.
I'm with Senor Parrot on this one. I forgot that we also froze their assets. That war hawk knew exactly what he was getting us into.
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's not exactly what happened. We cut off their oil because they were invading China without justification and committing heinous slaughters and mass rapes. This was after they had already stolen a province from China by turning it into a puppet state under the pretense that it was an independent country. We had every reason to cut off their oil. In fact, it could easily be argued that it would have been immoral to not cut off their oil supply.
I'm with Senor Parrot on this one. I forgot that we also froze their assets. That war hawk knew exactly what he was getting us into.
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol no there wouldn't be a 3rd world war because America first would never allow it.
The alternative to war would be to allow the USSR to conquer all of Germany rather than just half of it and quite possibly take France and Italy as well. Most of Europe would have been under communist rule. Hundreds of thousands or millions would starve, and tens of millions more would be impoverished and subjugated.
And Russia wouldn't have had as nearly as much success without USA lend/lease...Hitler would have been far more capable of meeting the Russians in battle.
That's true, but Russia probably would have won anyway. Even if they lost, the alternative - Nazi Germany - would be just as bad.
America first would also have meant an early peace with UK,
Depends what you mean by early. The UK had the resolve to fight on for several years, although they probably would have made peace in '44 or '45.
America being the world police creating power vacuums was a bad idea in 1940 and it's still a bad idea today.
We did not create a power vacuum in 1941. We filled it ourselves. Since then, we have had 70 years that have been, relatively speaking, extraordinarily peaceful. Europe has had no major wars in that time. Becoming the leading nation in NATO has made both America and Europe safer than ever. While we have created power vacuums in some places, overall it has led to peace, economic growth, and the expansion of freedom and democracy. Why do you think that America being the "world police" is a bad idea? Do you have any reasons for it other than "America First"?
-->
@bmdrocks21
FDR didn't know exactly what he was getting into. Neither he nor anyone in the military really expected or prepared for an attack from Japan. And as I said earlier, not placing those sanctions on Japan or freezing their assets would have made us complicit in their acts of barbarism. Why is that a good thing?
-->
@bmdrocks21
-->
@Greyparrot
@SirAnonymous
Irrespective the possible alternative scenarios surrounding WW2, that have been listed, would any of them resulted in less humans sufferreing?
Would any of them resulted in less hydrogen bombs on Earth today?
Less PVC poluttion?
Less global warming?
Less nuclear power plants and all of the associated nuclear wastes being stored on Earth?
Less people, that did no incur less human suffering?
So basically, would humanity moved forward using the smart minds over there brawny brains and have a less scary future outlook ahdead?
Would we still primarily a patriarchal ruled humanity?
Would women be less or more respected as equal co-partners humanities evolving?
-->
@ebuc
Irrespective the possible alternative scenarios surrounding WW2, that have been listed, would any of them resulted in less humans sufferreing?
Sure, but only because of information we know from hindsight. There would also have been many situations that would have had far more suffering.
Would any of them resulted in less hydrogen bombs on Earth today?
I don't know. I also don't know what point you're trying to make.
Less people, that did no incur less human suffering?
I don't know. Why would you want less people? And if you don't want less people, why ask the question?
Less PVC poluttion?Less global warming?Less nuclear power plants and all of the associated nuclear wastes being stored on Earth?So basically, would humanity moved forward using the smart minds over there brawny brains and have a less scary future outlook ahdead?Would we still primarily a patriarchal ruled humanity?Would women be less or more respected as equal co-partners humanities evolving?
What do any of these questions have to do with WWII? I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
-->
@SirAnonymous
I dont believe that any alternate scenarios involeving WW2 would have changed, ---to any great degree--- , where humanity finds itself today.What do any of these questions have to do with WWII? I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
And I dont know if there would have been more or less suffering with alternative scenarios. My guess is there would have been more suffering if USSR had conqured all of Europe and or if Germany had also conquread all of USSR.
-->
@ebuc
I dont believe that any alternate scenarios involeving WW2 would have changed, ---to any great degree--- , where humanity finds itself today.And I dont know if there would have been more or less suffering with alternative scenarios. My guess is there would have been more suffering if USSR had conqured all of Europe and or if Germany had also conquread all of USSR.
I agree that there would have been more suffering if the USSR or Germany had won, but these two statements seem contradictory. Had Germany won or the USSR won the war without the US, humanity would be in a different place, and there would have been more suffering.
-->
@ebuc
You absolutely inferred it. You said it in response to liberals being called immoral hypocrites.
But whatever, what is your question? If the bombs were justified?
We did not create a power vacuum in 1941. We filled it ourselves.
lol...
World police flopped in 1940. Power vacuums are very bad.
Right now, Macron is DEMANDING THAT AMERICA police Syria, and Trump is refusing. France is STILL the metaphorical Helen of Troy.
NATO is funded mostly by America, creating a bunch of weak EU nations unable to defend themselves from any invasion, or handle local conflicts like Syria. It's time to kick the EU out of the basement. We should never have been there in the 1st place.
-->
@Greyparrot
1. America entered the war in 1941, not 1940. 1940 was the year Germany invaded France.
2. Posting "lol", linking a picture, and restating your assertions proves nothing. America's entry into WWII changed which countries had power internationally from the old European powers of England, France, and Germany to the US and USSR. America brought down Japan as the main power in the East and became the main power in the East itself.
Do you have any serious arguments?
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't see your edit in the last post.
Right now, Macron is DEMANDING THAT AMERICA police Syria, and Trump is refusing. France is STILL the metaphorical Helen of Troy.
I don't see your point.
-->
@SirAnonymous
1. America entered the war in 1941, not 1940. 1940 was the year Germany invaded France.
Lend-Lease and Military Aid to the Allies in the Early Years of World War II. During World War II, the United States began to provide significant military supplies and other assistance to the Allies in September 1940.
Without lend-lease, UK would have probably surrendered near 1941.
2... to the US..
As in every world police action the USA takes, USA claims precisely zero of the territory while another power actor claims the unpoliced parts as sovereign territory. The policed section falls into atrophy over time, since it's not a territory of the USA and not under any real compulsion whatsoever except shallow attempts at extortion by "threatening" to leave.
World Police creates far more long term problems.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Right now, Macron is DEMANDING THAT AMERICA police Syria, and Trump is refusing. France is STILL the metaphorical Helen of Troy.I don't see your point.
Trump right now is blasting the failure of 80 years of EU world police policies from USA that spawned a bloated, dysfunctional NATO that can't take care of small local problems like Syria.
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok. It wasn't clear what you were referring to with the date.Lend-Lease and Military Aid to the Allies in the Early Years of World War II. During World War II, the United States began to provide significant military supplies and other assistance to the Allies in September 1940.
Without lend-lease, UK would have probably surrendered near 1941.
They probably would have lasted longer than that, but if there was no lend-lease, they probably wouldn't have lasted until 1945, so you are right that they would have quit before '45.
Trump right now is blasting the failure of 80 years of EU world police.
I thought your objection was to America being the world's police. In any case, since when has the EU tried to be the world's police? I still don't see your point.
-->
@Greyparrot
Please just make new posts instead of going back and editing your old ones to include more arguments, or just don't post until you have all your arguments typed out. It's making this conversation hard to follow.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Please just make new posts instead of going back and editing your old ones to include more arguments, or just don't post until you have all your arguments typed out. It's making this conversation hard to follow.
How about you chill your fatfingers and wait a bit before the kneejerks.
-->
@Greyparrot
Even if they're not contributing as much as they should, they are nevertheless contributing. If I remember correctly, there are 26 other countries in NATO. Even though not all of them spend as much on their military as they agreed to, it nevertheless adds up to the strongest alliance the world has ever seen. Leaving NATO simply because not all of the members are meeting their spending requirements would be a horrible mistake. Russia, even in its weakened state, is still a threat.NATO is funded mostly by America, creating a bunch of weak EU nations unable to defend themselves from any invasion, or handle local conflicts like Syria. It's time to kick the EU out of the basement.
We should never have been there in the 1st place.
I don't mean to be rude, but this is utterly absurd. NATO was a necessity to thwart the USSR. Without an alliance, Russia would have overrun even more countries, we could very well be living in a post-WWIII world.
As in every world police action the USA takes, USA claims precisely zero of the territory while another actor claims the unpoliced parts. The policed section falls into atrophy over time, since it's not a territory of the USA.
1. It doesn't happen every single time. In both WWII and the Korean War, the results were the exact opposite of what you describe.
2. How are the results of withdrawing from a police action evidence that we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place? Take a look at Afghanistan. When our military first went there, it had been overrun by the Taliban. Ever since the military has been there, the Taliban has never had that level of dominance.
-->
@Greyparrot
You're right; I should be more patient.How about you chill your fatfingers and wait a bit before the kneejerks.
-->
@SirAnonymous
It's okay, I am constantly re-reading my posts to make sure I am getting my thoughts across coherently.You're right; I should be more patient.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Even if you don't see that world police policies lead to serious long term problems, you have to admit that today NATO is a huge financial liability for America right now and has enabled EU countries from taking much needed local responsibility in places like Syria.
We can't even get them to take responsibility of the captured ISIS nationals!
That's some serious EU impotency and irresponsibility NATO has enabled. That's what I mean by atrophy.
What's also glaring with the manchild in the basement metaphor is that these policed countries don't want us there and don't want America telling them what their responsibilities are and what they ought to do, but will gladly take our money.
These 1 sided alliances are not making life better for Americans.