Hindsight being 20/20, Part II

[JohnRich 4]

With the advantage of 60 years of historical perspective, let's say it was your decision whether or not the U.S. invades Europe to defeat the Nazis. If you knew it would turn out as it has, would you or would you not trade 300,000 U.S. lives (and thousands of European lives) in order to remove Hitler from office?

[AWL71 0]

Don't you know it is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war?
Hitler and Hirohito were reasonable men and we should have taken the time to "reason" with them.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[SpeedRacer 1]

go back to WWI.

without the aftermath of WWI & the Versailles treaty, would extremists like Hitler & the Nazis have ever come to power in the first place?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

U.S. invades Europe to defeat the Nazis

John I sure hope you know what happened on June 6th 1944.

Seems to me there were five beaches (not two) that were used to allow the allies (not just the USA) to invade Europe and start the process to free Europeans from Hitler. Thousands of British (on their two beaches) and thousands of Canadians (on their one beach) were also wounded and killed to go along with the thousands of Ameriicans who were wounded and killed on that day.

The defeat of Hitler was a team effort

Edited to add: don't forget the sacrific Russia also made to defeat Hitler.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[livendive 8]

Quote

A poll using the advantage of "hindsight" is irrelevant.

When events happen, you don't have perfect future hindsight with which to make your choices. Knowledge is imperfect. You make the best choices you can with what information you have. No one knows what the actual outcome will later be.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

But more seriously, my answer is yes, I would again commit the US to that cause. Hitler's army was invading other countries, bombing our allies, and there was that little thing about Germany and Italy having declared a state of war against us.

By contrast, Saddam Hussein was not invading other countries, not bombing any of our allies, and was not preparing for or capable capable of pressing a war against us. In short, he was well-contained and did not pose a significant threat to us. If you're trying to draw a comparison between him and Hitler, the ties are so tenuous as to be almost invisible. I think they stop somewhere around "oppressive dictator".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andrewwhyte 1]

It is a complicated question, but still valid. Hitler would have been defeated without the US, but USSR (who actually won the European conflict) would have controlled Europe.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

By contrast, Saddam Hussein was not invading other countries, not bombing any of our allies, and was not preparing for or capable capable of pressing a war against us.

The Israelis would differ on this assessment.

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

U.S. invades Europe to defeat the Nazis

John I sure hope you know what happened on June 6th 1944.

Seems to me there were five beaches (not two) that were used to allow the allies (not just the USA) to invade Europe and start the process to free Europeans from Hitler. Thousands of British (on their two beaches) and thousands of Canadians (on their one beach) were also wounded and killed to go along with the thousands of Ameriicans who were wounded and killed on that day.

The defeat of Hitler was a team effort

Edited to add: don't forget the sacrific Russia also made to defeat Hitler.

I think he's also forgetting that Hitler had declared war on the USA.

"In their unshakable determination not to lay down arms until the joint war against the U.S.A. and England reaches a successful conclusion, the German, Italian, and Japanese Governments have agreed on the following points:

Article I. Germany, Italy and Japan will wage the common war forced upon them by the U.S.A. and England with all the means of power at their disposal, to a victorious conclusion.

Article II. Germany, Italy and Japan undertake not to conclude an armistice or peace with the U.S.A. or with England without complete mutual understanding.

Article III. Germany, Italy and Japan will continue the closest cooperation even after the victorious conclusion of the war in order to bring about a just new order in the sense of the Tri-Partite Pact concluded by them on the 27th September 1940.

Article IV. This Agreement comes into force immediately after signature and remains in force as long as the Tri-Partite Pact of 27th September 1940. The Signatory Powers will confer in time before this period ends about the future form of the co-operation provided for in Article III of this Agreement." Adolf Hitler, speech to the Reichstag, Dec 11, 1941


Kind of hard to ignore that!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

go back to WWI.

without the aftermath of WWI & the Versailles treaty, would extremists like Hitler & the Nazis have ever come to power in the first place?

Alternatively, go back to 1914 and stop Princip from shooting Archduke Ferdinand.

(Incidentally, I don't think Versailles was necessarily the problem. It might have prevented the Second World War as we know it had its provisions actually been enforced. The Allies in 1918 could have gone for reconciliation or punishment, and in the end didn't really choose either).

(And thanks to Kallend for making the obvious point that WW2 was not a war of choice in anything like the way that Iraq 2003 was).

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

go back to WWI.

without the aftermath of WWI & the Versailles treaty, would extremists like Hitler & the Nazis have ever come to power in the first place?

Alternatively, go back to 1914 and stop Princip from shooting Archduke Ferdinand.

(Incidentally, I don't think Versailles was necessarily the problem. It might have prevented the Second World War as we know it had its provisions actually been enforced. The Allies in 1918 could have gone for reconciliation or punishment, and in the end didn't really choose either).

(And thanks to Kallend for making the obvious point that WW2 was not a war of choice in anything like the way that Iraq 2003 was).

WWI was happening. Ferdinand could have been replaced by any number of trigger points. Nations at that time believed in frequent warfare. The costs of failure used to be less.

Versailles - maybe the cost of success wasn't great enough to encourage a more equitable settlement. It did effectively make the 20s and 30s a short break before the war continued again, much as the two Iraq wars are linked. I think you can either blame Bush for not making end of the first leg more conclusive, or Saddam for failing to honor the terms (acting like Germany did in the 30s, like any country that could cheat).

WW2 was still optional for us. Germany followed our declaration against Japan, but we were already clearly supporting the Brits. Had we been truly isolationist, maybe the Germans act less stupid and try fighting the Brits, the Russians, and the Americans at the same time.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I think he's also forgetting that Hitler had declared war on the USA.

Yeah, I mentioned that little bit of trivia too. Of course it's a simple technicality, not relevant at all.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[misaltas 0]

Quote

(And thanks to Kallend for making the obvious point that WW2 was not a war of choice in anything like the way that Iraq 2003 was).

War is always a choice.

You should choose it when you figure that the cost of inaction will in the short or long run be worse than the cost of action.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts