non-intervention and WWII

[trey4sports]

i was explaining the difference between isolationism and non-intervention and somehow we got on the topic of WWII and my IB history teacher tried to tell me that non-intervention wouldnt work in todays world because of all the nukes and how non-intervention was only realistic whenever we werent a superpower and war was more isolated to ground forces, simply put he told me that non-intervention isnt practical in todays dangerous world.... and I'd love to get some feedback or opinions on this subject

also

he noted that had the US not intervened (even without a japanese attack) in WWII then the allies would have likely lost to the germans and I really didnt have an answer to that, that instance also makes me question the idea of non-intervention. I'd love to get some feedback on what you guys think

[orafi]

You should tell him how Hitler thought the British Empire was a necessary entity and offered peace TWICE throughout the war.

That should serve him

[Truth Warrior]

Before both WWI and WWII, the overwhelming majority of the American people were very strongly isolationist. The Dem presidents both times lied and campaigned on keeping out of both wars.

Ask your teacher if the Swiss are in any danger or are concerned about being nuked.

Also ask about this:
WAR IS A RACKET
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/ar...risaracket.htm

[GHoeberX]

he noted that had the US not intervened (even without a japanese attack) in WWII then the allies would have likely lost to the germans and I really didnt have an answer to that, that instance also makes me question the idea of non-intervention. I'd love to get some feedback on what you guys think

He couldn't have been any further from the truth IMO. I know I'm going to be impopular for saying this as a European historian, but the USA intervention had everything to do with fear for communistic Soviet Union.

It was only after Soviet Union was crushing Germany on the east-front (they started winning since november 1942 during battle of stalingrad), that the Americans started to worry. Roosevelt could easily imagine how post-war would look like if USA would not intervene: One big communist block. And that's something he and many officials feared.

Now some less-realistic people will argue that how post-war Europe would look like, didn't really matter for Roosevelt; well the first thing they did, before even planning an Italian or French invasion was holding conferences on how post-war Europe would have to look like. Think of Cairo Conference, Tehran (yeah that's the old capital McCain wants to bomb) Conference and eventually the Yalta Conference.

Now please tell me; what's an IB-exactly; is it a professor International Relations? Because I would be quite shocked to learn if this person has an academic function...

So: back to the basics. If USA wouldn't have intervened, chances would have been great that Russia would have been lone superpower on the European continent as they would definitely crush the Germans. I wouldn't expect Stalin to immediately push west after nazi-germany had fallen and conquer the rest of Europe as well, but who knows..... Anyway; in the worst case scenario, laissez-faire theory has it that sooner or later, the best system will turn out on top. Just like it happened to Vietnam, eventually the whole of Soviet Union and Europe would see the communistic system to collapse.

FYI: I'm historian, master-degree in International Relations, currently writing a thesis on NATO intervention of Kosovo.

[Truth Warrior]

FDR and Uncle Joe were buddies. It was FDR that finally recognized the USSR in the early 30s and gave it international credibility. He was concerned that the Nazis just might whip Russia, and was looking for any plausible excuse to get the USA further involved to prevent that from happening.

[familydog]

Well...it would be a lot harder in today's world to be non-interventionist. What with the increase in globalization, mass communication, more mobile weapons and transportation. We can never go back to the world of the 19th century, when we could easily get away with doing that. I'm an advocate of non-interventionism, but it's not as simple as Ron Paul sometimes makes it sound.

[sophocles07]

He couldn't have been any further from the truth IMO. I know I'm going to be impopular for saying this as a European historian, but the USA intervention had everything to do with fear for communistic Soviet Union.

That’s right. There were actually right-wingers at the time advocating both alignment with Hitler (but inactive alignment) and alignment (with action) to bring down communism.

[AmericaFyeah92]

what lots of people seem not to understand is that non-intervention doesen't equal pacifism. If there is a legit threat to your country, non-interventionism still allows you to take action.

As for ww2, the Japs commited a first strike, and Hitler subsequently declared war on us, leaving us little choice. I view World War 2 as the second-most justified war in this republic's history. What is unfortunate is that it gave rise to a brand of socialism at home.

[Carole]

i was explaining the difference between isolationism and non-intervention and somehow we got on the topic of WWII and my IB history teacher tried to tell me that non-intervention wouldnt work in todays world because of all the nukes and how non-intervention was only realistic whenever we werent a superpower and war was more isolated to ground forces, simply put he told me that non-intervention isnt practical in todays dangerous world.... and I'd love to get some feedback or opinions on this subject

also

he noted that had the US not intervened (even without a japanese attack) in WWII then the allies would have likely lost to the germans and I really didnt have an answer to that, that instance also makes me question the idea of non-intervention. I'd love to get some feedback on what you guys think

Since the banks were funding both sides it would have likely been up to them to determine which side won had the US not been tricked into intervening.

I hope your history teacher is at least aware that Pearl Harbor was a trick to get us into the war even if he wanted us in the war. Does he even realize that the entire war was a scam?

[AmericaFyeah92]

Since the banks were funding both sides it would have likely been up to them to determine which side won had the US not been tricked into intervening.

I hope your history teacher is at least aware that Pearl Harbor was a trick to get us into the war even if he wanted us in the war. Does he even realize that the entire war was a scam?

that is such $#@!ing bull$#@!. Are you a stormfront member? Most of the Nazis blamed "Jewish Bankers" for starting the war, also.

Were the death camps scams? Were the dead sailors at Pearl Harbor scams? I suppose you think FDR planned Pearl Harbor, since you say it was a "trick."

Do you really want to live in a world where the Nazis dominated Europe and Japan dominated Asia? I'm glad we stopped that world from ever coming.

You are spitting on the graves of all of our countrymen who died to stop some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever seen

Disgusting.

[pdavis]

Read Garet Garrett's writings and watch the SouthernAvenger's video.

Interventionism and imperialism are inherently bankrupt!

[haigh]

Ron Paul's key point on non-intervention is more about WHO has the authority to decide on going to war.

He argues the Constitution requires that it is the legislative not the executive branch. So if the legislative branch perceives a threat the country goes to war. I have not seen any change in threats to America in twenty first century geo-politics that would justify shirking this constitutional mandate.

It is very likely 50,000 men who died in Vietnam would be alive today, if our congress had been brave enough to accept the responsibility of following the constitution.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Ron Paul's key point on non-intervention is more about WHO has the authority to decide on going to war.

He argues the Constitution requires that it is the legislative not the executive branch. So if the legislative branch perceives a threat the country goes to war. I have not seen any change in threats to America in twenty first century geo-politics that would justify shirking this constitutional mandate.

It is very likely 50,000 men who died in Vietnam would be alive today, if our congress had been brave enough to accept the responsibility of following the constitution.

good points. I think the governing class of the country feels as if they are above "declaring war." It would probably offend their politically correct sensibilities.

[Signzit]

He couldn't have been any further from the truth IMO. I know I'm going to be impopular for saying this as a European historian, but the USA intervention had everything to do with fear for communistic Soviet Union.

It was only after Soviet Union was crushing Germany on the east-front (they started winning since november 1942 during battle of stalingrad), that the Americans started to worry. Roosevelt could easily imagine how post-war would look like if USA would not intervene: One big communist block. And that's something he and many officials feared.

Now some less-realistic people will argue that how post-war Europe would look like, didn't really matter for Roosevelt; well the first thing they did, before even planning an Italian or French invasion was holding conferences on how post-war Europe would have to look like. Think of Cairo Conference, Tehran (yeah that's the old capital McCain wants to bomb) Conference and eventually the Yalta Conference.

Now please tell me; what's an IB-exactly; is it a professor International Relations? Because I would be quite shocked to learn if this person has an academic function...

So: back to the basics. If USA wouldn't have intervened, chances would have been great that Russia would have been lone superpower on the European continent as they would definitely crush the Germans. I wouldn't expect Stalin to immediately push west after nazi-germany had fallen and conquer the rest of Europe as well, but who knows..... Anyway; in the worst case scenario, laissez-faire theory has it that sooner or later, the best system will turn out on top. Just like it happened to Vietnam, eventually the whole of Soviet Union and Europe would see the communistic system to collapse.

FYI: I'm historian, master-degree in International Relations, currently writing a thesis on NATO intervention of Kosovo.

Yeah that's the official line, now tell us the truth!

Have you followed the money? Where did all the loans come from, who was funding Hitler? Why were certain Jews killed and others whisked away and protected? Tell us about the Pope. How was the Vatican able to broadcast pro-American propaganda radio all over Europe, without repercussions from the "Madman"?

I truly want to know what is being taught over there as History!
What is the current Dogma?

Come on, you will soon be known as an expert in your field; the truth is out there, now let's hear some of it. Talk to us about loan interest, lost booty and the "Lesser Jew"!

That "grip of fear" idea, that's what Americans are going to choose to leave behind. Yesterday's Communism = Today's Islamic Terrorist.

Funny, in that both conflicts, seem to have no end in sight. Oh wait the Russians didn't get that memo, and they erected that wall. Damn, so to end communism, all we had to do was tear down that wall. Nice!

In this new conflict, how do we win? There is no wall. Yet another Idea to battle but with no symbol. Wait! What about that Mosques you know, that one built on Zion land? Maybe that's it.

This FEAR game is all played out for some folks in America. Not say they don't/didn't exist, just that, they are and were, really no threat to the US.

Yes I'm a Truther, so lets hear some, we're dumb Americans but we're tough Americans, we can take it, tells us, or not.

Hey TS, tell your teacher to watch a Google video called "The Ring of Power" that should fix his boat! lol

[Signzit]

that is such $#@!ing bull$#@!. Are you a stormfront member? Most of the Nazis blamed "Jewish Bankers" for starting the war, also.

Were the death camps scams? Were the dead sailors at Pearl Harbor scams? I suppose you think FDR planned Pearl Harbor, since you say it was a "trick."

Do you really want to live in a world where the Nazis dominated Europe and Japan dominated Asia? I'm glad we stopped that world from ever coming.

You are spitting on the graves of all of our countrymen who died to stop some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever seen

Disgusting.

What you've repeated here, is common knowledge for the Informed. Yes FDR knew, I am sorry; i didn't like it either! At least 3 governments told FDR the Japs were headed our way. The Jews in death camps were not the right kind of Jew.

Should we talk about Nam also?

You might want to investigate the origin of Eugenics and why Hitler had the master race idea.

You're sure not ready to find out we're still a British colony, are you?

Did you know there is a corporate YOU, made by the IMF?

Did you know, the YOU, that you are, has a million dollar debt, put there, the day you were born?

Lies all Lies!

There, that should give you enough cover to call me crazy.

"Move along, nothing to see here..."

[AisA1787]

What you've repeated here, is common knowledge for the Informed. Yes FDR knew, I am sorry; i didn't like it either! At least 3 governments told FDR the Japs were headed our way.

...and so did Ron Paul:

"The Japanese are going to bomb Pearl Harbor! There's a telegram in the war office, tell President Roosevelt!!!"

-Ron Paul, December 6th 1941

http://veritasnoctis.blogspot.com/20...-alarm-on.html

[Dave Pedersen]

Hitler came to power because of the interventionist policies of WW1. The treaty of Versailles threw Germany into severe and unnecessary economic collapse which opened the way for Adolph to gain power.

[m72mc]

i was explaining the difference between isolationism and non-intervention and somehow we got on the topic of WWII and my IB history teacher tried to tell me that non-intervention wouldnt work in todays world because of all the nukes and how non-intervention was only realistic whenever we werent a superpower and war was more isolated to ground forces, simply put he told me that non-intervention isnt practical in todays dangerous world.... and I'd love to get some feedback or opinions on this subject

also

he noted that had the US not intervened (even without a japanese attack) in WWII then the allies would have likely lost to the germans and I really didnt have an answer to that, that instance also makes me question the idea of non-intervention. I'd love to get some feedback on what you guys think

regarding ww2. Hitler lost it the day he attacked soviet.
regarding intervention by the US. Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around. It was no pre-emptive strike against a third world nation.
You don´t go around mass murdering innocent civilians in other countries that has done no harm to you. Those nations that do are no better than Nazi-Germany. Besides I never see people advocating war, who send their own children to die in them.

[Truth Warrior]

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering ( at Nuremburg )

[Truth Warrior]

bump for "New Posts" periodic "marked read"

[truelies]

............. If USA wouldn't have intervened, chances would have been great that Russia would have been lone superpower on the European continent as they would definitely crush the Germans...............

VERY VERY doubtful. Without USA economic aid, the strategic bomber offensive gutting german industry and the tying down of millions of German troops in the west the USSR would have had little chance of prevailing in the end.


BTW FDR Loved the Commies. His VP before Truman WAS one.

[LEK]

non-intervention wouldnt work in todays world because of all the nukes and how non-intervention was only realistic whenever we werent a superpower and war was more isolated to ground forces, simply put he told me that non-intervention isnt practical in todays dangerous world.... and I'd love to get some feedback or opinions on this subject

So how many nukes did we get when we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia???
Your teacher is parroting what either he is told to parrot or what he has been brainwashed to believe.

If we are "getting-them-before-they-get-us" why is our southern border wide open? Does pre-emptive strikes mean we don't need any national defense? Didn't seem to work on 9/11. All of our interventionist policies didn't stave off those terrorists.

Poppycock.

We should mind our own business.

[orafi]

He couldn't have been any further from the truth IMO. I know I'm going to be impopular for saying this as a European historian, but the USA intervention had everything to do with fear for communistic Soviet Union.

It was only after Soviet Union was crushing Germany on the east-front (they started winning since november 1942 during battle of stalingrad), that the Americans started to worry. Roosevelt could easily imagine how post-war would look like if USA would not intervene: One big communist block. And that's something he and many officials feared.

Now some less-realistic people will argue that how post-war Europe would look like, didn't really matter for Roosevelt; well the first thing they did, before even planning an Italian or French invasion was holding conferences on how post-war Europe would have to look like. Think of Cairo Conference, Tehran (yeah that's the old capital McCain wants to bomb) Conference and eventually the Yalta Conference.

Now please tell me; what's an IB-exactly; is it a professor International Relations? Because I would be quite shocked to learn if this person has an academic function...

So: back to the basics. If USA wouldn't have intervened, chances would have been great that Russia would have been lone superpower on the European continent as they would definitely crush the Germans. I wouldn't expect Stalin to immediately push west after nazi-germany had fallen and conquer the rest of Europe as well, but who knows..... Anyway; in the worst case scenario, laissez-faire theory has it that sooner or later, the best system will turn out on top. Just like it happened to Vietnam, eventually the whole of Soviet Union and Europe would see the communistic system to collapse.

FYI: I'm historian, master-degree in International Relations, currently writing a thesis on NATO intervention of Kosovo.

IB stands for International Baccalaureate... It's like AP but with extra critical thinking.

This is a program that asks you to think outside the box.


You realize the irony? I did when I was in this program. I don't blame the program however, it's the teachers...

[Banana]

WW II was ok cos we did declare war, and acted in self-defense after Pearl Harbor.

I didn't know about the theory that USA intervention was out of fear of communism, though. Will have to look into this.

But here's the real gem: Should USA have intervened in WW I? IINM, there was no attack on US except for sinking of cruise ships which was already known to carry munitions for UK and was a military target under the international law, and Germans even had the courtesy to warn the passengers of the danger prior to boarding.

[AmericaFyeah92]

But here's the real gem: Should USA have intervened in WW I? IINM, there was no attack on US except for sinking of cruise ships which was already known to carry munitions for UK and was a military target under the international law, and Germans even had the courtesy to warn the passengers of the danger prior to boarding.

absolutely not. WW1 was, in my opinion, the stupidest war in human history. We had no valid reason to join, but the Progressives got us into it anyway.

Woodrow Wilson deserves to be remembered as this country's worst president, but that's for another thread

[trey4sports]

lots of really good info guys, ill have to take some time and read all the posts and get back to my teacher

[sratiug]

VERY VERY doubtful. Without USA economic aid, the strategic bomber offensive gutting german industry and the tying down of millions of German troops in the west the USSR would have had little chance of prevailing in the end.


BTW FDR Loved the Commies. His VP before Truman WAS one.

Except that the bombing actually had little effect on German war production, which was still very high hence the incredible destruction in the last phases of the war. The only thing that prevented the Germans from winning the war was the stupidity of Hitler dividing his forces before taking Stalingrad. My uncle died in the last days of the war while we were trying to take Germany to save it from the Russians. Idiocy. Why would we do that except that we caused the whole situation through WWI? And to get spoils of war, scientists and people involved with the NAZIs to work for us against the Soviets.

The fire bombing of Dresden and such mainly served to kill thousands and thousands and thousands of civilians. Same as Japan firebombings, which killed more civilians than the nukes that we used to try and keep Japan from the Russians.

[hairball]

Except that the bombing actually had little effect on German war production, which was still very high hence the incredible destruction in the last phases of the war. The only thing that prevented the Germans from winning the war was the stupidity of Hitler dividing his forces before taking Stalingrad. My uncle died in the last days of the war while we were trying to take Germany to save it from the Russians. Idiocy. Why would we do that except that we caused the whole situation through WWI? And to get spoils of war, scientists and people involved with the NAZIs to work for us against the Soviets.

The fire bombing of Dresden and such mainly served to kill thousands and thousands and thousands of civilians. Same as Japan firebombings, which killed more civilians than the nukes that we used to try and keep Japan from the Russians.

There were a LOT of things that prevented the Nazis from winning the war. The first thing was starting it in the first place. The German industry never had the might to win a war of attrition. If they could not get it decided by 1941, they were going to lose.

German war industry was severly hampered by the bombings. From the loss of oil to refine, to the refined fuels, the Germans began to have serious strategic shortcomings from their fuel shortages. German railways were a favorite target, and the loos and damge to logistics crippled how the Nazis prosecuted the war. Also, in Germany as in Japan, the quality started to decline. For collectors of Arisakas will tell you that the rifles being built at the end of the war are NOT for shooting, and the quality of the rifles suffered in the haste to put SOMETHING in the hands of soldiers.

There is also a new book out, Dresden, that talks about the Dresden raid. I am moire sorry for the loss of irreplacable historical building from the raid than anything else, but Dresden did turn out to be a legitimate military target, so in war, it is to be obliterated. Once you are not able to protect your own skies, you are doomed. The Nazis and the Japanese failed on that critical level, and were doomed to lose.

[Zolah]

Hitler came to power because of the interventionist policies of WW1. The treaty of Versailles threw Germany into severe and unnecessary economic collapse which opened the way for Adolph to gain power.

+1

It's okay to sit around and talk about how justified some intervention is, but you also have to look at the intervention that caused the need to intervene.

[acptulsa]

+1

It's okay to sit around and talk about how justified some intervention is, but you also have to look at the intervention that caused the need to intervene.

+1=2