Some People think all Veterans Are Evil

[Unimatrix11]

(A little funny sidenote, to loosen up a bit: You know this Simpsons-episode, in which Bart ´fights a war´ against Nelson ? At the end, he gives a little peace-speech, saying that there are no good wars, except ´Star Wars and WWII´ - the snafu is, that it got dubbed into german with exactly the same words in airs like that on TV)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
Well, CS, in case of WWII, the end of the war that way wouldnt have meant that humans lives would have been saved, probably...

There would have been less war dead. As David Floyd routinely points out, the U.S. was the arsenal of the United Nations. Great Britain certainly couldn't have held out as long as it did, and the Soviets would likely have collapsed sooner.

Given the mass numbers of people that still die in the Third World today (over ten million a year) due to the economic structure of the world, one cannot make the argument that ultimately more people were saved as a victory of the United Nations over the Axis.

[Arrian]

There's an awfully big assumption you always make when you bring up "the mass numbers of people that still die in the Third World today (over ten million a year) due to the economic structure of the world."

Are you seriously going to argue that an Axis victory would have led to an "economic structure of the world" that would have resulted in less human misery?

Yeah, right.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Asher
Some of the most shameful historical actions of America involve their inaction in World Wars 1 and 2 until it was too late. If you fought earlier, more lives may have been saved.

First off, there was no good side in WWI. Both sides were the bad guys. If the U.S. had actually been neutral (as opposed to being an effective ally from very early on), the war would have ended years earlier.

In WWII, the war could have been stopped before it was started. If the Allies hadn't been so opposed to signing a defense treaty with the USSR, Hitler could never have invaded Poland. It's not our fault Europe was more anti-Communist than anti-Fascist.

The British weren't really bad in WW1 they only entered the war because they guaranteed the Independence of Belgium so when the Germans invaded the British (who had been sitting on the sides more or less) joined the war. I don't think Belgium was a bad guy either since their only fault was being militarily weak and being a nice route to get to France.

[Arrian]

You know, if we're going to dig through world history looking for pure "good guys" we're going to be involving ourselves in a long and fruitless search.

Therefore, we need alcohol.

-Arrian

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
Well, CS, in case of WWII, the end of the war that way wouldnt have meant that humans lives would have been saved, probably...

There would have been less war dead. As David Floyd routinely points out, the U.S. was the arsenal of the United Nations. Great Britain certainly couldn't have held out as long as it did, and the Soviets would likely have collapsed sooner.

Given the mass numbers of people that still die in the Third World today (over ten million a year) due to the economic structure of the world, one cannot make the argument that ultimately more people were saved as a victory of the United Nations over the Axis.

That must remain speculation. But from a german point of view it is indeed like the US first acted as if it wanted to help the allies to hold out as long as possible and when they were about to collapse despite the fact, they came to rescue them. In both cases they stood by and watched as long as they could and only then made sure the right side won. Very frustrating in the german point of view.

In WWI the US announced neutraility. They objected to german commerce warfare and the bloackade of britain, but not the british blockade of germany. Nontheless, the germans called off their sub-campaign, but nothing they could do would bring them in the war on their side. And then, when Germany hoped it could end the war within 6 months by using the subs, they enter the war and spoil it all. And James L. Stokesbury´s question in his book ´a short history of WWI´, wether a german victory in WWI would have really been such a bad thing after all, is ligit IMHO.

In WWII, when America entered the war (though technically germany declared on the US on dec.11th, honoring their pact with Japan), all hope for victory was gone. Thus, on jan. 20th 1942, Nazi-officials met to discuss how to punish them - they had already prepared well for that case and in their world-view, when it was all over, they had punished what they regarded the elite of the US pretty badly...

EDIT: Quote added

[Dinner]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Those two statements show a remarkable lack of knowledge of the geopolitical situation in the first half of the century...

There was no EVIL side in WWI, just two groups of states acting in their self-perceived best interests. I think unless you define 'good' as 'communist' or something equivalently silly like that, it is wrong to say they are both 'bad'. Perhaps neither side was inherently good, but I hardly think France can be called 'bad' for defending its territory against German invasion, for example.

And refusing to sign a treaty with Stalin in the 1930s had little to do with Russia's communist leanings, and more to do with the fact that it was JOSEF STALIN; and mostly, to do with the fact that it was RUSSIA, who nobody in the West had ever really gotten along with. Why sign a treaty with the nation that is most likely to be a problem in the future (and pre-1937, I would bet if you polled the British people, or even their nobility or whatnot, they'd have cited Russia/USSR as the #1 threat, over Germany, who everyone assumed was dead in the water). I hardly think it was a matter of being anti-communist. You could say they were anti-Russian Orthodox and probably have been just as accurate...

If I am not mistaken Russia declared war to defend Serbia while France declared war to honor their treaty with Russia while the British said the treaty was only defensive and so initially the British refused to declare war. They only officially declared war when the Germans invaded Belgium.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The British weren't really bad in WW1 they only entered the war because they guaranteed the Independence of Belgium so when the Germans invaded the British (who had been sitting on the sides more or less) joined the war. I don't think Belgium was a bad guy either since their only fault was being militarily weak and being a nice route to get to France.

Germany had guranteed the British government full independence of belgium after the war, should it not intervene. It also asked belgium for military access. By both, they gave their entire war-plan away, and thus took a huge risk.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Arrian
You know, if we're going to dig through world history looking for pure "good guys" we're going to be involving ourselves in a long and fruitless search.

Therefore, we need alcohol.

-Arrian

Yes.

However it's really easy to identify utter ****bags who needed to have been stopped.

[Unimatrix11]

Seriously, if one asks me which was more desired, war with germany by the british, or war with britain by the germans, it surely say first, without hesitation. Both times.

[Arrian]

I think you misread the Brits. They wanted the status quo, not necessarily war.

-Arrian

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Kidicious


For a good part of european history the French and even you guys kept the German people down. That's exactly what the war reparations were about. I can understand why the German people were easily convinced to go to war with you again.

Revenge isn't a good excuse for starting a war.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Oh so you think we joined in to fight the war because of those two reasons? How cute you are.

It's dangerous for people to believe the way that you do.

Correction- it would be dangerous for people to believe the way that you have incorrectly concluded I do. When you've finished with that strawman, feel free to rejoin this.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
Yeah, because that's so different from how the Allies acted in the colonial world. The Japanese were no different, and the only difference between the Nazis and the West is they did it to white people. Since the end of WWII, the United States has either directly, through its own military actions, or indirectly, through proxy actors (like UNITA and RENAMO, etc), killed over ten million people. How many people did the West kill in the Congo in the 1960s? How about Biafra? How many have died in Iraq as a result of the occupation?

Excellent. So as well as 20/20 hindsight, you're now relying on 20/20 prophetic foresight too?

The Nazis needed stopping, and had you, in 1940, argued "No! We must not fight, for in 70 years or so the regimes that succeeded the ones we experience now might have, through and extensive series of guilts-through-association-and-influence, racked up an arguably similar bodycount!" we would quite rightly have pointed and laughed at you.

We do that anyway, of course. When in full flow, you're a real thundering backside.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11


Ähem - Hiroshima ? Not as bad as the Axis - but the allies werent to fuzzy about killing huge numbers of civilians either (and Hiroshima is but one, and not even the bloodiest example).

That's always the touchy subject dragged out.
Do I think the bombing was the right action at that stage ? Yes.
Would I have wanted the bombing to occur ? No.
The difference between those two is I believe the only thing that can give it justification.