Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?
From Conservapedia
| ! | THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting | 
|
Contents |
Post Your Thoughts
As Japan attacked the United States and Germany declared war on the United tates, the question is a non-question. Perhaps the question that should have been asked is: Should the United States have aided both China and Britain before war was declared on it. I suggest that in both instances the United States was looking after its long term interests.
The United States was attacked by Japanese forces and the Axis powers threatened to take over Europe. America would be greatly harmed if the axis had taken over Europe because the resources and allies that we had there would no longer exist. If the US didn't want to attack Japan they would look weak to the rest of the world and would risk being attacked again, by the Japanese or another hostile force. So, only looking at the good for America directly it is obvious that war was necessary. The crimes against humanity that the Nazis committed are atrocious but, as we can see from current examples, such as Darfur, it is not enough to get America into battle. --Flax+ 20:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Sure, It's a Question
While it's true that the U.S. couldn't directly do anything to undo Germany's DoW on it, that's not really the same thing as saying we had no choice about entering the war. It's one thing to exist in a nominal state of war, and another entirely to launch a total war effort beyond anything the world ever witnessed before. Germany had approximately zero capability to project power into North America, and, while it's U-boats were capable of interdicting American shipping, that didn't require a full scale response. We could have simply chosen not to participate in shipping offensive to the Nazi regime (which collapses back to Flax's point), or simply fought a naval battle to keep open the shipping lanes.
The situation with respect to Japan was a bit more difficult, since Japan had chosen to directly attack us. But, in point of fact, Japan was at the end of its logistical tether. It couldn't repeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, much less carry the war forward. We could have simply chosen to turn the other cheek. Of course, Japan would, in that event, likely have succeeded in expanding its influence to control the petroleum resources in the co-prosperity sphere, which, over the course of 20 years or so, given them the means to project power throughout the Pacific. But that get more to the question of whether it was advisable for us to stay out of WWII, than the question of whether it was possible to do so. User:QBeam
no
The British and French were no better than the Nazis. Their imperialism was what drove Germany to such desperate measures. Also, if left alone, Germany would have destroyed the Soviet Union, which would have halted the spread of Communism and the polarization of the Third World during the Cold War. It was basically the other European powers that were adding fuel to Hitler's fire. If Germany defeated them, the German people would seek a more moderate leader. If FDR hadn't interfered with Japanese expansion in the Pacific, America could have avoided war completely. The Japanese never thought for a moment that they could defeat America. They hoped that after winning a few battles, America would be willing to compromise. neocorporatist
- Have you read anything about the history of the war in Europe? Or are you simply spouting what other people have said? For a start, the Nazi's were a terrible party who murdered many millions of Jews, homosexuals, political leaders (who opposed the Nazi's), disabled people and many more besides. How can you possibly say that Britain and France are even comparable to that? Then you go on to say that it would have been better if Germany had defeated Europe and had a one country continent ruled by an evil dictator; oh wait they wouldn't keep the evil dictator they'd get rid of him. Oh, wait a mo, he killed everyone who opposed him so perhaps getting rid of him might be a bit hard! You need to read up on your history if you think that that's an accurate representation of what happened in WW2. MatteeNeutra 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
America's involvement in WWII was a total disaster.
WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. After millions dead on both sides at the end of the war Poland was turned over to the Soviets. We never even accomplished the initial goal! Hitler wanted to deport the Jews. Awful yes, but if we would have accepted them we would have gotten a million educated immigrants. Better than the millions of uneducated immigrants we get today. After Hitler's death the Germans would have gotten back to sanity. With the death of millions of Europeans the Middle eastern nations were able to rise to more power. This is also the reason millions of Muslims have been immigrating to Europe. With the invasion of Muslims indigenous Europe will cease to exist in a generation. WWII may have very well be the seed that lead to the extinction of indigenous Europe. Remember the Holocaust didn't start until well after the war started and might never had happened if there had not been a war. So don't use the Holocaust as a reason for the war.
The Japanese front is even a more obvious failure. We never should have stuck our nose into the orient's business. We kicked the Japanese out of China, thus letting the Communist take over. This lead to Mao's murder of about 100 million Chinese. This is no improvement over the Japanese controlling China. The new Japanese Empire would have collapsed eventually, like all empires do. We didn't need to kill millions to speed it up. Millions dead for no improvement at all and probably made things worse.
- Just a slight factual correction in your response. The jews of Europe varied in education, from some of the highly educated peoples of France and Germany to the entirely ignorant populations of Poland and Russia. SunFun2 09:43, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Let's clear some things up
Just to clear some things up. Hitler did not want to deport the Jews, he wanted to kill them, six million of my people were mercilessly murdered in the camps. (America's hands aren't clean though, they refused to accept Jewish refugees.)
Sunfun2, all of my ancestors are from the Jewish communities of Russia, Poland and Lithuania, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't slander them with disgusting lies.
The user formerly known as DLerner 06:34, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
actually the Nazis initial plan was to force the Jews to leave Germany, he aimed to send them all the Madagascar so they could have a country of their own. Unfortunately, he realised it would be easier to put them in concentration camps than force them to leave their own country. The holocaust was the "Final Solution" to the "Jewish problem" as the Nazis liked to refer to their anti-semitism.
Yes
As a European I'm glad they did, otherwise I'd probably live under Nazi rule now, that is if none of my ancestors had been disposed of by the party.
So I'm glad the Americans joined in, even though I know their reasons for doing so weren't noble: the Holocaust didn't start until after the Americans got involved and the segregation of Jews in Germany was no different from the segregation of blacks in the US. Middle Man
- most europeans still hate jews.Jaques 12:38, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, do we? What a claim... Timppeli 12:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes because without American intervention the Nazis would be ruling over large portions of the world now.--Fg 12:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
- Edited a bit as your answer was most likely for the original question, not to me Timppeli 13:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't aware that I hate Jews. That's like saying everyone in the southern US still hates blacks.
that is so stupid to say that most europeans still hate jews. in most european countries there was hardly any anti-semitism, and only really ignorant people are anti-semitic or are willing to group a whole continent as anti-semetic.
- the segragation of Jews in Germany was nothing like the segragation of blacks. I am not aware of any death camps in Alabama. The holocaust did start before Americas entry. if the americans reasons werent noble, what were they?Bohdan
And its true that many Europeans do still have negative opinions of Jews. According to Abe Foxman of the ADL 21% of europeans consider themselves anti-semitic! thats one-fifth of the population. 40% of Europeans believe Jews have "too much power in financial markets" everyone knows thats the most basic anti-semitic claim. If one-fifth of our beloved continent openly admits anti-semitism, we have a problem.Bohdan
I live in Europe, and yes, there is some anti-semitism (like there is everywhere on the planet), but not 20% of the population.
No, really, the "final solution" (including the death camps) was set in motion after the Swannsee conference in 1942, partly because the Nazis felt that they wouldn't have the time and resources to ship the Jews to Madagascar (the original plan) now that the US had entered the war.
There were earlier death camps for political opponents and there was a "euthanasia" policy against the handicapped, but those were not the reasons the US entered the war, the possibility of losing trade partners and allies Great Britain and Australia combined with the attack on Pearl Harbour and pressure from American Jews were.
- Those sound like pretty good reasons for war to me. I too live in Europe and even I think that these statistics are high, but the ADL stands by them.Bohdan
They are reasons for war, but they do not show the allies were morally superior to the axis (before the Holocaust took place), especially if you count the Soviets with the allies.
Let's face it: there's never been a pure "Good vs Evil" war.
- were the Soviets really with the Allies?Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Before the holocaust took place(as you say) the Nazis did many very bad things(large scale anti-semitism among others). The allies were definately morally superior. Bohdan
That pact didn't last until 1941, the Nazis fought the Soviets along the eastern front (20 million Soviet and 3 million Germans died on that front), and the Soviets had entered an official alliance with the western allies.
I'm not saying the Nazis were good (their policies were cruel and racist), I'm just saying we don't like to remember the racism and segregation in the US and Australia (isn't racism towards blacks, hispanics, asians and aboriginals just as bad as anti-semitism?), the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, the Soviet reprisals against civilians, the Soviet deportations, etc...
- this brigs up interesting debate about USSR. nothing the US or austalia did compares to the actions of Nazis. obviously the Soviets were bad, I personally think they were worse than the nazis.Bohdan
In Australia aboriginal kids were put in "re-education camps" and beaten if they spoke their own language, same thing happened to Indians in Canada and hispanics in the US, the US also officially endorsed segregation (also the official policy of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust), natives in the British and French colonies did not have the same rights as Europeans, the allies knew about the atrocities Stalin was committing, but denied it in public, carpet bombing of cities, nuking of 2 cities, that kind of thing...
Remember the part where Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland? Segregation in the US, the British and French Colonies, and Australia, as wrong as they were, were not the issues at hand in WWII.
Actually, it was completely Germany's fault that the United States entered World War II. Contrary to popular belief, Germany and Japan did not work together very much. Germany did not have to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. If it wasn't for Germany declaring war, the United States would have been fighting WWII in the Pacific Ocean only. PSMax8956 13:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
- I think this hypothesis is shown to be false by the way in which the U.S. actually responded to Pearl Harbor. "That was a dirty rotten trick the Japanese pulled, and we're never going to forgive the Germans for it!" would be a reasonable tag line. Both Germany and Japan declared war on us, but it was Japan that killed 2,000 of us in what we at least said we regarded as a dispicable and underhanded sneak attack. So how did we respond? With a maximum war effort in Europe, and no serious committment to the Pacific. In fact, as I indicated above, Germany had essentially zero ability to threaten us, and so their declaration of war was immenently ignorable, if we'd been inclined to ignore it. We weren't, and we didn't. User:QBeam
We Absolutely should have been there helping our friends the Brits, they have always been there for us. It's because of American and Britian (as well as Canada and Australia) that we are free from being a leftist totalitarian state like Germany was in the 30s and early 40s. --Konservativekanadian 19:20, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
- Leftist? Are you kidding? German fascism was definitely NOT leftist. Considering it claimed to be the polar opposite and immortal enemy of socialism (especially Bolschevism) the leftist claim seems a little ridiculous. Bruce1 21:04, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
From an Economic Standpoint, Yes
{{Though I believe wholeheartedly in our decision to go to war, I will focuse on the
economic division of the causes and effects of the war.
The United States in 1940-41 was still struggling painfully to escape
the clutches of the Great Dpression. When war was declared on December 8,
the USA moved over to a War Economy. This entailed price restrictions, massive increases in production,
and government protectionism of American industries. This gave a powerful boost to the American economy,
giving jobs to millions who had not had a job in years.
The war brought strength to ailing industries and drew women into the workforce,
creating another increase in jobs.
Not only this, but the Japanese Empire was also invading American
tradepartners like China, and threatening British-held India,
a large source of income for one of our closest allies.
By crushing Japan, America also gained dominance in the Pacific, securing a great amount of new trade, not
the least of which was Japan itself and the millions of dollars that American investors put in to it's recovery.
This stimulated the American economy, and in fact allowed it to supplant older countries like Britain and France.
This was also in part due to the more flexible system of Capatalism used in America,
the basis of which was free trade with equal partners,
as opposed to the Mercantilist economies of France and Britain which relied on colonies to produce wealth.
In the De-Imperialization era after WWII, the older empires fell apart because of the loss of colonies
to revolts and the freeing influence of the United States, while ours remained strong.
}}
