Even if the government of Germany declared war on the government of the United States, how does that make it okay for the government of the USA to bombed the civilians of Germany. How is it a “good war” innocents are being murdered?
It doesn’t, but I never even considered that in any part of what I wrote. [*-)] I was obviously pointing out the reasons why the United States went to war (and their real motivation in the European Theater). The topic title says " Was it right of the US to enter WW2?“, not " Was it right of the US to bomb German civilians?”.
Has anybody here read Garet Garret’s The Bubble that Broke the World? It is one of the best books on how the U.S.-inspired credit bubble in Europe directly led to antagonization between the major European powers, and you could ultimately link that to the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.
Very optimistic of him. Richard Sorge had by September 1941 definetely determined that the Japaneese were not going to invade. I had always assumed that he did in order to preemt the Americans. That by feinting boldness in declaring the war himself he hoped to avoid the blow to the morale of the populace that would follow a US declaration of war on Germany.
Even if that is true and the American ruling class was responsible for Hitler`s rise to power (which is as silly as it sounds), that would not give them the justification for for example conscription. If you are responsible for some bad event occuring then you should work to redeem yourself by using legitimate means only, using illegitimate means and taking on a greater good mentality will only add to your list of sins.
Essentialy you are using a variant of the “you break it you own it” argument. If you broke something, you should stop hammering at it already. Not hammer on with twice the zeal.
I was replying to the OP.
This is the same man who believed he could unite the Soviet Union behind his objective of strategically defeating the British.
I’m trying to find the exact quote, but I don’t know if I will. David M. Glantz, in When Titans Clashed, doesn’t make any mention of it:
On 7 December 1941, while Hitler was purging his generals and G.I. Zhukov was trying to destroy Army Group Center, the Japanese attacked the United States in Hawaii and the Philippines. Washington responded by declaring war on Tokyo the next day, but American participation in the Europea struggle remained limited. Hard pressed in the Pacific, the United States was unprepared politically and militarily for a two-front, global war.
Four days after Pearl Harbor, Adolf Hitler solved the American dilemma. In a speech to the Reichstag, Hitler definatly declared war on the Unitd States, even though his defensive alliance with Tokyo did not require such action. Undoubtedly, Hitler regarded this declaration as a mere formality after months of U.S. Navy participation in convoys and other antisubmarine actions in the North Atlantic. He apparently hoped that the Pacific War would distract the United States, reducing its constrbution to the struggle with Germany. Certainly Hitler underestimated the potential for American industrial and military mobilization, a surprising mistake for a man who had presided over a similar mobilization in Germany during the 1930s. Still, this declaration proved to be as fatal for Germany as the Barbarossa invasion itself. Within six months, Germany had gone from undisputed mastery of the European continent to a desperate struggle with the two greatest powers on earth. The short-term Axis successes of 1941-1942 were eventually dwarfed by the Soviet and Americal attacks that Hitler had invited.
So, for the time being, it doesn’t seem that I was correct. I believe it was Glantz who had made mention of Hitler’s hopes of Japan attacking the Soviet Union, but it may not have been (maybe it was Albert Seaton, but I have no way of remembering).
After all these posts and history lessons, I think we can take this away:
Even if it were moral for the US to fight WWII, they certainly could have been a lot more libertarian about it [;)]
American ambassador to Italy William Phillips delivered this message on May 17, 1939, to Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano “…that the American people intend unanimously to concern themselves in European affairs, and it would be folly to think they would remain aloof in the event of a conflict.”
That’s just the rhetoric from the Roosevelt administration, but your post just simply overlooked all of the important historical foreign policy events and actions before the war was declared on America. What about America’s “neutrality patrol” that directed British warships? What about on October 18th when the ships of all belligerents were forbidden to enter American ports? Even earlier than that, America was getting war contracts hence the creation of the War Resources Board. I can go on, but the point is America and certainly Roosevelt were covertly acting as aggressors. Don’t brusquely brush aside all of the Revisionist work that has been done on this. I suggest you read Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Chapter 2 entitled " Roosevelt is Frustrated in Europe."
Edit: I was directing my post towards Jonathan Finegold Catalan, I forgot to quote you. My apologies.
I’ve always wondered about this. I imagine you had relatives serving in any number of branches of the German armed forces. Was it a good thing so many German soldiers died ?
I understand the self critical nature of Germans. But often I see it boil down to just a kind of permanent masochism. Being a German speaker, more often than not I read Germans defend the Dresden bombings as OK, even necessary. I cant often discuss it with them on most German sites for I am quickly swarmed.
The myth (yes, myth) of WW2 as a ‘good war’ is in my mind feeds the dehumanizing of America’s ‘enemies’ in later wars. “Oh he’s just a Nazi. Who cares if we machine gun him and 20 of his buddies in the back”, or “He’s Waffen SS, no quarter for those guys” (the reality was much more complicated than that). All is now glorified in the silly films they feed us over here about the war. This is a precursor to the “He’s just a gook”, “He’s just an a-rab terrist” dehumanizing campaign of our more recent wars.
No, I didn’t. I explicitly suggested that the United States goaded Japan into war. I just said that the Pacific Theater was more important than the European Theater, and the only reason the Americans put so much effort in Europe was out of political necessity (especially the threat of Soviet expansion into Western Europe).
I’m not sure what’s wrong with this, especially if it covers all belligerents.
I’m not sure how trading is an act of aggression, and the United States can trade with whomever they want.
As I said,
“in a consistent libertarian society, if any, Woodrow Wilson and his cadre should’ve been the ones fighting WW II, and Roosevelt would’ve been allowed to join - by himself. Everything else will lead to injustice.”
I’m not arguing that it was good for the US to join. To be honest, I’m not sure whether I’ve taken my arguments too far out of my intellectual reach already.
No, I don’t think so.
I cant often discuss it with them on most German sites for I am quickly swarmed.
It’s a hot button topic. The party that is currently considered the heir of the NSDAP likes to push the issue when the anniversary of the Dresden bombings comes up. Thus, it’s often considered “Nazi”.
All is now glorified in the silly films they feed us over here about the war. This is a precursor to the “He’s just a gook”, “He’s just an a-rab terrist” dehumanizing campaign of our more recent wars.
It might have something to do with the overarching American militarism, too. A “friend-foe” mentality that naturally dehumanzies whoever is currently considered an enemy.
Dehumanising the enemy happens in every war. It is not a post-WWII phenomenom. What the good war mentality feeds into is liberal interventionism where you have people dedicated to uncovering new Hitlers and launching new crusades against them - good wars for the present generation.
Sure sure, but there was an element of chivalry to America’s post war periods prior to that. There might have been dehumanizing campaigns of Mexicans, Southerners, and Spanish but they werent dehumanized to the point where murdering them in cold blood would have been considered OK.
Does the fate of the Indians and of the Fillipinos really fit into that?
Well, I meant front line armies but I guess you make a good point. The Indian Wars (1864 on) and the post-SpanAm War insurgencies would have been considered ‘savages’.
Say whatever you want, Inglorious Basterds is totes awesome.
That movie makes my point, in particular the ending.
But pretend its any other American war; instead of Nazis its Vietnamese or Arabs and it wouldnt seem so fun.
You did overlook the European situation.
Except Russia; so much for neutrality.
War contracts for producing for the British and only the British. Political favoring doesn’t show neutrality.
And I hold that Roosevelt was not originally interested in going to war with Germany as much as he was interested in going to war with Japan. War with Germany became a political necessity because of the dire situation Great Britain was in (in North Africa and at sea, at least, since it was not realistic for the Germans to invade the British Isles). It is clear that Roosevelt did not manipulate events in the Atlantic as much as he did in the Pacific. Ultimately, he knew that his entry into the war would be through Japan, since they were in the best position to attack the United States (and they did).
It’s true that Hitler had little choice, given that the United States was already actively participating in arming its allies, but that was not as much manipulation on Roosevelt’s part as much as it was just a series of events which occurred. On the other hand, as aforementioned, American politics in the Pacific are a much better example on how the United States’ entry into WWII was no accident.
A country cannot trade with who it wants? This is news to me.
Like I said, is it not within a country’s right to trade with who it wants?