| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > America's entry into WW2 |
| Posted by: Chutzpah June 03, 2006 11:16 pm | ||||
[split from http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=3056]
Hum,... excuse me Sid but this is truly a bucket of horseshit. The US entered the war against Germany because a brilliant man with a good grasp of national interest (and the Axis global threat to those interests) pushed the country in that direction. Maybe Germany made the first declaration, but the US destroyers fired the first rounds to get precisely the expected result.
Well said. |
| Posted by: sid guttridge June 06, 2006 10:09 am |
| Hi Imperialist, What is all this about "eliminates the idea that the US entered the war to uphold international law or principles"? Where have you seen this idea proposed? I would suggest that you have invented it yourself. The US entered the war because it was attacked by Japan and had war declared on it by Germany. Where's the mystery? If the US declared war every time international law or principles were broken then it would be in a state of formal belligerency almost everywhere almost all the time. Indeed, it could have declared war on Nazi Germany on those grounds at least as early as the Nazi-sponsored coup in Austria in July 1934, and probably even earlier! Let's stick to the facts. Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: Imperialist June 06, 2006 10:23 am | ||
Where have I seen the idea? Why, in US presidential speeches, ofcourse. Democracy, rule of law among nations, fight against evil regimes etc. I wasnt talking about WWII, you can find my opinion about the US entering WWII on another thread. In case you dont find it, the US entered WWII the moment it decided to extend lend lease to Britain and then USSR. And it happened before Pearl Harbour and the German war declaration. |
| Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 06, 2006 01:07 pm |
| With regard the USA she entered WWII in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, as Japan and Germany were allied together, (when you go against Japan you naturaly go against Japans Allies, so thats what started the ball rolling,) along with the German declaration of War against the USA for declaring war on Japan. Kevin in Deva.  |
| Posted by: Imperialist June 06, 2006 04:29 pm | ||
When you start supplying Germany's enemies you go against Germany. |
| Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 06, 2006 06:55 pm | ||||
Now that has to be the most stupid statement made with regards WW2. IF Germany did not like what the USA was doing, why did they not declare War on the USA, because they were afraid of an early U.S involment, Adolf remembered it was the USA who put a stop to the Prussian conquest of Europe in WW1. Great Britain and America were friends from before that, Austrian lunatic decided to take over Europe. All countries have agreements, Trade agreements, security agreements, etc (just as they do today). I even seem to recall Adolf signing a Non-perliferation pact with old Joe Stalin, which was not worth the paper it was written on. Same as the paper Neville Chamberlin bought back from Berlin to England, worth nothing except toilet paper. Point of fact is that the USA had no wish to get involved in a War with Germany, the memories of the dead and injured from the First World War were all to fresh. During the start of WW2 the US ambasador to London was none other than Joe Kennedy*, a rabid British hating American-Irishman, he made so many pro nazi statements he had to be removed from his post in London because of the embarresment he was causing the US. (* Father of two future US Preidents, but because of his womanising and involvement with liqour smuggling during the Prohabition period would have no chance to get the post of Preident for himself.) But the German Navy sinking many American ships and taking the lives of American saliors, not out in the Atlantic or near the UK but off-shore America, in American territorial waters began to turn public opinion. Also the Americans were smart enough to see that once Adolf and his gang got control of Europe he would not be content there but would continue his expantion. Romania fought against the Germans in WW1 but when the crunch came in WW2 they bent over and said "take me Adolf", were there any attempts at a resistance against the Germans, we have all heard of the Partisans of Russia, Poland, Belgium, France, Greece etc, but where were the Resistence against the Germans in Romania?? There wasn't any until your new masters swept in from the East. then overnight all Romania became a Nazi-hating machine, No Sir, Mr. Stalin, we were forced to do it there was a big bad German standing over us with a big stick. The "Imperialist" seems always searching for a way to stir up feelings of resentment, making everything a target for his frustrations. Why is he so hateful of the USA, whats the hidden agenda behind his posts, what frustration burns in him that he has to post so much anti-american, anti- British, Anti everthing not to his narrow-minded way of thinkingmaybe he should consider changing his name to Anachist, or Antiimperialist Like it or not the USA exsists, and will continue to exsist, no matter what. and soon Romania will be the 52nd State of the good old USA Sex. Drugs, Rock & Roll. Kevin in Deva.  |
| Posted by: Imperialist June 06, 2006 07:37 pm | ||||||||||||||
Oh, I see, so the US started to help UK and USSR with lend lease but that in no way should be interpreted as involvement in WWII. Sure, if country X is at war with country Y and country Z starts to help out country Y with war materiale, then in no way is country Z involved in war. No sir. What a stupid idea. Indeed, Germany could not declare war on the US, but they could have done it theoretically, since the US was aiding their enemies.
I didnt say it was their "wish" from the start. But as soon as ABC-1 Conferences (January-March 1941) they set out their goal the defeat of Germany. And then they went forward with Lend Lease to Britain and then USSR when the latter was attacked by Germany. All these months before any attack on Pearl Harbor or a formal declarationa of war from Germany.
Other threads can give you a better context for those events.
Same here.
Now, why should it be anti-american to say that the US got involved in WWII several months before Pearl Harbour? Dont get me wrong, I stand by my anti-americanism, and last I checked it was not illegal to have anti-american feelings as long as you dont break the law. But I just dont see why this issue makes you so angry. Is there anything you want hidden? Some truths not told maybe?
I am hated therefore I am.  Sounds OK to me. I have no problem with America existing, really. take care |
| Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 06, 2006 08:08 pm |
| Germany could not declare war on the US, but they could have done it theoretically, since the US was aiding their enemies. I am not angry, if you get your kicks by trying to irritate people then thats your perversion,  With regards countries helping one another nobody invaded Sweden for supplying items to Nazi Germany. And why wouldnt Britain & America help one another, they were in exsistence long before the Austrian Lunatic Adolf proclaimed his 1000 year Reich  they at least honoured their agreements and continue to honour their agreements.Certain East European Countries of an ex-communist nature have yet to make any commitment to being a member of the United States of Europe, if they want to improve their way of life then of course they must sacrifice something in return. As for helping out the USA, if there is a profit to be made, whether the profit is in improvng the way of life for the people, by more jobs better oppertunity then they will take it, because if they dont their neighbours might, and cash in the hand is better than a dream. Civilisation dosent stand still, regimes come and go but life goes on, most people still like the idea of having a little say in their lives, so whats the alternative to "Democracy" you had communisum, that didnt turn out so well for you so whats left to try. You could always try to start a commune of your own, with the Me, Myself, I Party, your political policy, being: Yes, No, Maybe. |
| Posted by: Imperialist June 06, 2006 08:27 pm | ||
New Connaught Ranger, it is common sense that when a country aids another with military materiel while it is at war, then the former is involved in that war and risks getting dragged into it. The fact that it doesnt necessarily happen depends on the context and strength of that country. USSR was involved in Korean War and China was involved in Vietnam. I never heard anybody contesting that involvement because they didnt issue formal declarations of war. And as I said, as soon as January-March 1941 ABC-1 Conferences, the US knew very well it had to get involved in WWII. The purpose of the stated conferences was "to determine the best methods whereby the United States and the United Kingdom might defeat Germany and her allies". I dont know what to say about the rest of your post. take care |
| Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 07, 2006 07:31 am | ||||
1941 ABC Conference. . . America knew it had to get involved in WW II, only 2 years after the War had begun. (Strange terible feeling  ) maybe the Japs didnt attack Pearl Harbour, maybe the Americans bombed it themselves as an excuse to go to War Maybe they were sinking their own ships off the coast of the USA to fool their own people. Maybe the Concentration Camps in Europe didnt exsist, they were built by Hollywood stage managers, and filled with the bodies of people killed in the fighting Adolph Hitler and his gang started something they couldnt finish, plain and simple, and thankfully the USA decided not to turn its back on Europe or we all might be speaking another language right now, if that is the Untermench would be allowed to speak!! Kevin in Deva PS you will find the Chinese had more troops in Korea than the Russians, but as they are easlier disguised as Koreans it was hard to prove a direct involvment (military advisors is what I think they call them). And apart from using atomic weapons on China & Russia the US decided to leave well enough alone. |
| Posted by: Imperialist June 07, 2006 07:56 am | ||
Well, I'm glad you now understand the US got involved in the war (by supplying the UK and then USSR and planing with UK) before Pearl Harbour. Was it that hard? Did you have to make such a fuss? The Lend Lease was introduced as a bill as soon as December 1940 if I remember right, but it was only passed by Congress in March 1941. Again, I dont know why you're so upset. It is very interesting to note, that both in WWI and WWII the US seems to have intervened when the shipping losses of the UK in front of the German U-boats started to be very large and they threatened it with defeat. take care |
| Posted by: sid guttridge June 08, 2006 09:39 am |
| Hi Imperialist, From the context it looked very much as if you were talking about WWII. War begins when belligerency first occurs or it is declared. There are all sorts of distorted relations short of war that occur, not just lend-lease. Why not choose the date of US entry into the war as when the first military contracts from the Anglo-French were accepted? Or when a U-boat sank the first US citizens? Or from the moment the first Eagle squadron was formed? One could argue that Germany was effectively at war continuously from the moment the Anschluss with Austria was mounted, because there was hardly a pause thereafter in the military planning and military execution of the Sudetenland, Bohemia-Moravia and Polish occupations. I might suggest that in effect Germany was at war for a good year and a half before September 1939. Its great advantage was that nobody else was at war with it! What about Switzerland or Sweden? They supplied materials to the Axis throughout the war. Do you count them as being at war? One can obscure the issue in numerous ways, as you are doing, but the fact of the matter is that the US was at war with Japan from the moment of Pearl Harbour and with Germany from the moment of Germany's declaration of war shortly afterwards. If you want to make the case that earlier US actions were provocative, be my guest. There is a case to be made there. But the fact of the matter is that the US actually entered the war when physically attacked. Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: Chutzpah June 08, 2006 11:05 pm | ||
Well, perhaps we should distinguish a bit. Pearl Harbor marked US entry into the war against Japan. Roosevelt's agreement to let US escorts attack Germans subs de facto put the US at war with Germany. If Hitler hadn't declared war on Germany, I'm confident Roosevelt would have done it in 42. Hitlers' declaration probably helped Roosevelt in his internal politics but that's all. In the Atlantic, the dice were already cast and the Germans recognized this fact. |
| Posted by: Imperialist June 08, 2006 11:55 pm | ||
With the risk of being accused of dragging this into contemporary politics, I ask you this: if Iran gives material aid to the iraki insurgents with the clear knowledge and will of it being used against the US forces, does that make Iran involved in the conflict in Irak, or not? If that involvement is 8 months old when the US finally declares war (let's say), does it meant Iran was involved only when war was declared? Again, I dont want to make this a discussion about Irak or Iran, I just think a contemporary example could make easier to understand the X,Y,Z example I gave earlier. You can search other examples in the post-45 history, if you wish. I dont think the question was when the US was at war, but when the US got involved in the war. I know you are smart enough to spot the difference, and if my words are not clear enough, please correct them. Moreover, since that was total war, the US industrial might being used to arm the British was not at all a matter of shades or theoretical subtleties. take care |
| Posted by: sid guttridge June 09, 2006 09:48 am |
| Hi Chutzpah, A lot of things may or may not have happened under different circumstances, but if we are discussing history rather than fantasy then we have to stick to the facts of what actually happened. Roosevelt may or may not have committed the USA to war in 1942, but the fact of the matter is that the Axis declared war on the USA in 1941. Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: sid guttridge June 09, 2006 10:05 am |
| Hi Imp, You originally talked on this thread of when the USA "entered the war". I would suggest that undeclared invasions or declarations of war clearly mark out who entered the war and when. However, your current formulation is "involved in the war". As I pointed out earlier, everybody, including neutrals, were more or less "involved in the war". Corned beef tins on every British battlefield attest to neutral Argentina's "involvement in the war", but they are not evidence of its entry. Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: Imperialist June 09, 2006 10:48 am | ||
You know very well what I mean. December 7 marks the direct involvement of the US in the war, or the full entry into war, but the US was already involved by giving material aid to Britain and then extending it to USSR. Not to mention the state of conflict present in the Atlantic. In April 1941 the US Navy attacks its first german submarine off Iceland. In May Roosevelt declares a state of "unlimited national emergency". The US establishes bases in Iceland in July. The Germans also sunk american ships and by september-october 1941 they also attacked US destroyers. The declarations of war were almost formalities and they only upped the level of involvement. Hitler could very well have refused to declare war, at the ABC-1 Conferences it was already decided that Germany will be the main target in the war. take care |
| Posted by: Chutzpah June 09, 2006 11:22 am | ||
I'm not sure what fantasy you're talking about Sid. You do know that US escorts attacked Germans subs in the Atlantic before the DOW, don't you ? The precise date of the DOW is but a mere technicality for those already engaged in the battle. You may hang on to it as something important but it's a mere footnote in history. If I punch you in the nose, are you going to wait for a declaration that I don't like you before acting ? |
| Posted by: sid guttridge June 09, 2006 01:35 pm |
| Hi Chutzpah, Fantasies are things that didn't happen, such as Roosevelt bringing the US into the war in 1942. History is things that did happen, like Pearl Harbour. I'd prefer to deal in the facts rather than fantasies, interesting diversions though they may well be. Yup. I did know that US escorts attacked U-boats in the Atlantic before the declaration of war. I also know that one US escort was sunk by a U-boat during this time. Did you know that the US merchant ship Robin Moor was seized by the Deutschland on 9 October 1939? Did you know that the US merchant ship City of Rayville was sunk by German mine on 9 November 1940? Did you know that the US merchant ship Charles Pratt was sunk by a U-boat on 21 December 1940? How many assaults on U-boats by US escorts had there been by the end of 1940? Would you care to list the ever rising number of US merchant ships sunk as 1941 progressed? Did you know that at least 243 US merchant seamen had been killed by the time of Pearl Harbour? How many German sailors had been killed by the US Navy by then? The precise date of a declaration of war may well on occasion be a technicality for those already engaged in battle. However, I very much doubt it was a technicality as far as the US was concerned in December 1941! Are you really suggesting that there was no substantive difference in the US's position between the day before Pearl Harbour and the day after Germany's declaration of war? The entire terms of reference of the US's "involvement" in WWII changed radically in these few days. Cheers, Sid. P.S. I don't think your analogy of a play-ground punch up is really appropriate here, do you? |
| Posted by: sid guttridge June 09, 2006 01:36 pm |
| Hi Imp, Please see my last post to Chutzpah. Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: Chutzpah June 09, 2006 01:54 pm | ||
Oh yes, you bet I do. Jesus Christ Sid. How do you manage to post so much and still avoid answering simple questions. You're steering and dodging real hard here, like a true hair splitting lawayer. I will try to present it in yet a simpler manner, for the benefit of people not used to your punitive spinning. Do you consider a voluntary attack on foreign miltary units as an act of war ? Yes / No Do you consider that Vietnam was a war (considering there was no DOW) Yes / No I expect two extremely short answers (not 182 questions). C'mon, a little focus ! We are not making progress... Cheers ! |
| Posted by: sid guttridge June 09, 2006 05:36 pm |
| Hi Chutzpah, Nice try, but a quick look at our last couple of posts will soon reveal which of us has left questions unanswered - and it isn't me! I will, of course answer your last two questions, as I usually do. However, you cannot reasonably expect to prescribe my answers. Not everything is directly answerable by yes or no without clarification. For example: Is the US/British/French flag yellow or green? Yes/No? or, Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes/No? Anyway, in order to accomodate you as far as possible, I will abbreviate my answers as much as possible: 1) Not necessarily. 2) Yes. You will, I hope, note that I never said that a declaration of war was the only way a war may open. That is your fixation, not mine. Now, will you be answering any of the seven (!) questions you left unanswered from my last post to you? Cheers, A very focused and extremely progressive Sid, as requested. |
| Posted by: Chutzpah June 10, 2006 02:01 pm | ||||
Sid, I'm not going to answer your heap of questions because, er .. just because you feel like it. C'mon. Be clear. What's your point with them ? What would the answers demonstrate ? There is no point tasking people with turning their library upside down, digging up hard data for no visible purpose. If there is something you really don't know I will gladly help you but be reasonable. No half page list of military quiz, I have a life you know. Of course I suspect you perfectly know the answer to those questions and you just try to play with my feet. By the way. What makes Vietnam a war ? (You can answer without making library searches - I'm so kind with you).
I never said that you said it , Sid. And its not my fixation Sid. You made a honnest mistake. [sarcasm mode off] Cheers ! I love you Sid ! |
| Posted by: Imperialist June 10, 2006 02:45 pm |
| Well, since Sid will disagree with whatever I say, I'll bring some "authoritative" opinions: These foreign aid activities culminated in the Lend-Lease Act of March 1941 that swept away the pretense of American neutrality by openly avowing the intention of the United States to become an “arsenal of democracy” against aggression. Prewar foreign aid was largely a self-defense measure; its fundamental purpose was to help contain the military might of the Axis powers until the United States could complete its own protective mobilization. Thus by early 1941 the focus of American policy had shifted from hemispheric defense to limited participation in the war. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/AMH-V2/AMH%20V2/chapter2.htm#b12 So, Sid. Was the US involved in the war prior to Pearl Harbour, yes or no? |
| Posted by: Imperialist June 10, 2006 05:25 pm |
| We have broken with our past. We have thrown away our New World, our splendid isolation, our geographical advantage of three to one against all aggressors, our separate political religion. There is no longer a New World, nor an Old World, but now one world in which the American people have been cast for a part they will have to learn as they go along. There is no longer a Monroe Doctrine. In place of it there is an American Internationalism. We do not yet know what this means. From now on for us there is no foreign war. Any war anywhere in the world is our war, provided only there is an aggressor to be destroyed, a democracy to be saved or an area of freedom to be defended. Garet Garrett, March 29 1941, Saturday Evening Post Prophetic words. |
| Posted by: cnflyboy2000 June 10, 2006 05:59 pm | ||
I'm a little surprised at how Eurocentric (and nitpicky) this discussion has been. Should I be? Re America's entrance into WWII; I'm sure you are aware of the the role of oil; Japan adapted an expansionist policy in the S.Pacific in an attempt to secure that vital resource. (sound familiar?) FDR knew this of course. At the same time, the U.S. was at least equally involved with aid to China as it was with the U.K and Russia. In 1941 the U.S. embargoed oil to Japan. There is a school of thought that holds FDR was pressuring the Japanese as well as the Nazis to make a move, as he needed cover from the large isolationist sentiment which prevailed ( "America first" movement....also sound familiar?) According to this scenario, The miitarist Japanese obliged FDR, in rather spectacular fashion......... and the rest is history. I'm sure you are aware of all this. cheers. |