World War 2

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

I'm in the process of reading Zinn's "A People's History of the US." I've found it to be a good read so far. In my eyes the high point (or low point I guess) thus far is the opening chapter on Columbus...but I digress.

I realize that Zinn is intentionally tilting the scales and writing in a biased manner, he lays that out in his introduction. However, I just wrapped up the chapter on WWII, and I'm not sure how I feel about the picture Zinn paints.

While there are several shameful moments of US involvement in WWII, namely the a-bombs (or at the very least, the 2nd one) and the treatment of some of our allies after the war (what we pulled with Poland particularly bugs me), I feel that by and large this was a war worth fighting.

A) We were attacked

B) There was a dictator at work, with ambitions of world domination and the means to achieve it

and

C) Whether it had anything to do with us entering the war, there was a group of innocent people in the process of being literally exterminated.


What is the sentiment here on DU re: World War II?

[bluestateguy]

1. Was Zinn opposed to the war?

I believe he served during WWII.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

4. I believe he served in the Air Force.....

but the book goes a long way in suggesting that the war was possibly a sham.

[T Roosevelt]

2. The problem is...

we were attacked by the Japanese, not the Germans. It was only after Hitler (subsequent to Pearl Harbor) declared war on us that we (officially) entered on the side of the Brits. Until that point we apparently had no problem with what Hitler was doing.

[NWHarkness]

7. You are forgetting Lend-Lease

Roosevelt wanted very much to help the Allies stop Hitler, but his hands were tied by the isolationists in congress.

[Bandit]

8. We had many of our merchant marine ships attacked and sunk by Germans

We were supplying England with food and supplies and a lot of our ships were attacked by German U-boats. I would call that an act of war. Merchant Marine ships sail under the US Banner and are considered American soil. It is a fallacy to say we were not attacked by the Germans.

[amber dog democrat]

9. Based on a 1939 Fortune Survey

A majority of American businessmen would have stayed neutral and sold trade goods to England and Germany, ( Cash and Carry )

There is no question the US was quietly providing aid to the Brittish but until the attack on Dec 7th, I wonder if or when the US would have joined in.

While we are at it, consider the roots of the Bush family fortune came from trading with the Third Reich in the mining and steel industries - and they did not stop until 1942. No question some of us had no problem with Hitler. Henry Ford didn't either.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

12. I don't buy that....

"Until that point we apparently had no problem with what Hitler was doing."


We were aiding the war effort without going so far as declaring war and pledging troops, in the way of filtering supplies to Great Britain. No way there was complete apathy to what Hitler was doing. It just didn't warrant a delcaration of war in the public eye until we were attacked by one of Germany's allies. Thats why I noted in the original post that the Holocaust may not of been the reason we entered the war, but it was worth stopping.

[T Roosevelt]

20. I did say "officially"

Yes we were providing the Brits with supplies thru Lend-Lease, but we weren't out front on any efforts to bring Hitler to a stop. And unfortunately too many companies were too happy to be making money off the German war effort.

And we didn't enter the war against Germany when Pearl Harbor attacked - we waited until Hitler declared war on us - a truly stupid move on his part. Perhaps we would have eventually, but we only did in response to his declaration, not Pearl Harbor.

But you're right - it was worth stopping.

[rinsd]

38. Learn your history....

Doing nothing?

Lend and Lease ring any bells? Armed escorts for convoys? The intelligence gathering?

Considering the overwhelming isolationist mood of the country at that time, FDR was playiong with electoral fire by doing even these things. To say we had no probelm with Hitler is a ridiculous and false assumption.

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. if hitler and japan

had left america out of it they would have had the resourses to fight off the russans, take over england and rule europe

[amber dog democrat]

10. I don't think the Whermacht could have pulled it off

Russia was simply too big to take and manage even if Hitler had NOT interfered with the balance of the campaigns in the East. there would have been more Stalingrads I am thinking.

As for England,,, if Goering had not decided to quit bombing the strategic targets, ( airfields, radar stations, manufacturing centers-) in favor of population centers, they may well have gained the air superiority the Luftwaffe would have needed to cover a landing from accross the channel. After 1940 that opportunity passes for good.

[7th_Sephiroth]

13. i think that if the Luftwaffe

were enlarged and used heavier against rissan ground targets and troops they would have just managed to pull it off

[amber dog democrat]

18. But there was not enough capacity to project the stragegic power

Germany would have needed. By 1941 on, even with the miracles Albert Speer was able to achieve in industiral manufacturing, the resources to build enough aircraft were already strained to the limit - and US and Brittish strategic bombing took an enromous toll.

Plus, there were not enough really good medium and haevy bomber designs in production. If the ME 262 had not been messed with by Hitler there would have been more of them but ....would it have turned the tide?

If Germany had NOT invaded Russia - that would have been a different story.

[7th_Sephiroth]

19. this is assuming the US diddent get involved

so the bombings werent that extreme

[amber dog democrat]

22. That is an interesting point you make.

The US was happy to stand idly by and watch Norway, Holland, France, Belguim, Greece, Libya, Bulgaria, Romainia, certainly Poland and Chezkoslavacia ( sp )
Yugoslavia, get over run and taken over.

The US was willing to let Brittian sink to the edge of starvation from the U Boat campaigns and Russia get invaded - before Japan attacked and Germany declared war the day after.

Of course, we goaded Japan into attacking us - albiet unwittingly.

And Japan's leaders so misread the political leadership here - as pumped up as they were by desparation and a myth of military infallibility.

But once they were running wild in the Pacific, we were committed .

After a while I think Germany was bound to take us on, if only as a tacit ally to Brittian. Still, held down in Soviet Russia, and spread all accross the Mediterrainian and Europe the Third Reich was a bit overextended - and led by a leader who had no accountabliity or limits to his authority.

[7th_Sephiroth]

23. i think the japaneese forced hitler

into declaring war with pearl harbor, he knew the U.S.'s military strength and knew he wasent ready to fight them yet, not until he had a strong position in russia and had taken england over

[amber dog democrat]

25. I honestly wonder if Hitler had won in Russia

and had all the Lebensraum Germany needed, that they would have stopped there.
At the heart if it, he was looking out for his Aryan peeps. Could there have been a Thousand Year Reich? I still don't think it would have worked.

Did you know that over 60% of the Wehrmacht's transport was horse drawn?

[7th_Sephiroth]

26. would he have stopped?

no, i think he would have made plans for south america, and i think america would have sided with the nazi's

[amber dog democrat]

33. But could we have trusted them?

Stalin thougt he had a deal worked out too.

[7th_Sephiroth]

36. probably

if he saw us as an ayrian nation and willing to follow him

[amber dog democrat]

39. But we were not ayrian back then either.

There was alot of mixed ethinicty from immigaration and even so , He turned on the leadership of the SA in 1934. Roehm was Aryian. So were his friends purged in the Night of the Long Knives.

I honestly don't beleve the NAZIs could have been trusted.

[7th_Sephiroth]

40. no

they would ask for us to no longer accept non ayrian (and possibly japaneese) immigrants and start up camps for our jewish and other non approved immigrants and citizens

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

43. A US/Germany alliance.....

Probably would have turned out much like the US/Russia alliance. Tensions would have existed from the start and eventually they would have boiled over until one country or the other collapsed. IMO

[7th_Sephiroth]

46. probably

but wjat was the germany/japan alliance like?

[TO Kid]

49. With Japan it could have worked

Hitler was actually quite upset about Pearl Harbor. The Germans were lobbying Japan to attack Russia from the east; had they done so it would have kept the US out of the war and forced Stalin to fight on two fronts.

[Ready4Change]

21. As I've understood it...

Britain and the USA were the citical swing votes of WWII. Had they swung the other way, or even remained neutral, we'd be living in a far different world. And that swing was more questionable than people admit anymore.

Hitlers biggest dissapointment was that Britain fought against him, rather than joining him or staying neutral. He thought the English would join his aryan cause.

And he thought the same of the US.

Prior to Pearl Harbor there was actually a strong dialog in the US about which side, if any, the US should support. It isn't talked about very much, but there were a great number of prominent Americans who viewed Nazi Germany with favour. Top surprise to me, being an aviation buff, was Charles Lindberg views on Germany. He not only admired their aviation industry and technology, he favorably viewed their intent to "improve" human bloodlines. Anne Morrow Lindbergs book was a real eye opener for me in that regard.

As things happened, by early '44 the Axis powers were clearly going to lose. US and Russian industrial production was just going to swarm over all opposition. Both of their industrial bases were relatively free of the ravages of war.

[7th_Sephiroth]

24. Henry Ford admired hitler so much

he sent him hundreads of thousands of dollars for his birthday during the war years, what suprises me most is that alotta people either straddling the fence or pro nazi, did get behind the us when it sided with england against the nazi's

[demnan]

5. There was good cause to go to war during WWII

Which didn't make it any easier or less tragic for those who died fighting it or came back changed forever from it.

The Germans had to be stopped before they got the bomb and the Japanese had to be stopped before they killed all the Chinese.

[Jerseygirltoo]

6. Zinn

I believe he served on a bomber. He has some mixed feelings now, about the fact that civilians were killed in those bombing raids, but at the time he was totally in support of the war. His point is that all war results in morally bad actions by both sides, which is why we should all we can to avoid them.

[Parche]

11. War

As a History buff, I know we did the right thing by dropping
the A-Bombs on Japan, it was a necessary evil.
I have read dozens of reports that they were killing the POW's
Thousands of them had only weeks to live due to disease and
starvation, 1 in particular that is a favorite of mine was
Richard Okane of the Submarine USS Tang, it is said that he
had only days to live at the end of August.
Once Admiral Halsey found this out, he had speeded up the process
of rescuing them.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

14. Can we ever really say for sure that it was the right thing?

The act of dropping the bombs clearly went a long way in ending the war....it's hard to argue that, but I can't say in good conscience that it was the 100% right thing to do....at least speaking of terms of Nagasaki.

[Parche]

31. Nagasaki

Yes the planned bombing was really for Kokura Japan, but it was
very cloudy and they could not get a definate fix.
So Nagasaki was picked, and they almost didnt get in there either,
but a break in the clouds allowed them to drop.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

42. You're giving a narrative of what happened.....

how does that justify the Nagasaki bomb?

[Parche]

47. justify

It was justified because the stubborn Japanese Army still had
not surrendered, nor were they about to surrender, until the
2nd bomb was dropped, and the Emperor finally told the Army.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

50. Japan had offerered to surrender

even before Hiroshima with one condition; that the Emperor not be forced to step down. We wanted unconditional surrender.

[TO Kid]

52. Nagasaki sealed it

The War Cabinet was still split after Hiroshima with several members arguing that the US only had one bomb. Even after Nagasaki, when the Emperor informed Cabinet that he would order the surrender, some of the generals attempted a coup.

[Morning Dew]

17. Not only that -

Operation Olypic would have cost us (probably) 1/4 of a million in casualties.

[DrWeird]

27. Oh, so you're a history buff.

Then you're aware Japan was willing to surrender before the dropping of the atomic bombs, under the same conditions we agreed to after.

[Parche]

29. History buff

Yes I am
And they were NOT ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped
that is a fact, the Army had control and they were very fanatical
and were very stubborn, and were going to fight to the last man.

[stavka]

35. ...in fact there was a nearly successful coup attempt

by the Imperial bodyguard division against the emperor AFTER he had decided to surrender.

Japan was nowhere near surrendering before the bombs.

[BrotherBuzz]

28. One other consideration for the Bull Halsey's speedup equation

Russia was poised to attack Japan, in fact, they officially declared war on Japan the day between the two bombs. US didn't want Russia's fingers in the Japan pie. Sadly, politics trumps casualties in war.

As for dropping the second bomb....well, the jury is still out in my mind, especially after reading Akira Yoshimura's novel One Man Justice. Interesting story about Japan and the closing days of the war. Firestorm's, POW's, defense...it covers all of it from another perspective.

[Parche]

32. Admiral Halsey

I know some of his decisions were controversial
But he had a great point, with his speedy removal of the POW's
He also made a point to bypass Palau, which would have saved
thousands, but the higher powers (King) already decided to invade
The Phillipines campaign was moved up almost 2months because of
Halsey and saved thousands of lives there.

[evil_orange_cat]

15. There's no doubt there were atrocities commited by both sides...

It was a terrible time in humanity's history... but I firmly believe the US was just in its cause and right to enter the war. In fact, I think the US should have entered the war earlier. It was in fact conservative isolationists who didn't want the US to fight.

I believe the use of atomic bombs was justified considering the possible loss of life if the US would have had to invade the Japanese home islands. And considering other incidents, like the bombing of Dresden, the atomic bombs were not the worst attack on civilians the Allies were responsible for. The fire bombing of cities was far more destructive than the atomic bombs. And the use of the bombs brought Japan to an unconditional surrender which perhaps saved over a million lives (on both sides).

[tom_paine]

16. DEFINITELY WORTH FIGHTING! The German Busheviks of 1942

HAD to be stopped.

had they won, and installed their Imperial Family in, say, 1955, would we have had Civil Rights, the Environmental Movement, etc.?

No, we would have had Amerikan Auschwitz, which has suddenly become very possible (though it will be "kinder and gentler" than the original) withing the next 50 years.

[stevedeshazer]

30. A very large American corporation helped Hitler exterminate Jews

http://ibmandtheholocaust.com/

[Charlie Brown]

34. If there was ever a just war

it was the war the Allies waged on Germany, Japan, etc. Up to 10 million dead in Europe, and aggression waged on most of the continent (from Norway to Greece & the Balkans). Perhaps as many killed by the Japanese in Manchuria & China (some as the result of horrible biological experimentation), & further aggression into the Philippines & Indochina (and even Alaska). If the U. S. should be criticized for anything re: World War II, it's waiting two years before joining the cause against fascism/Nazism, letting groups like America First dictate our international policy. Also, we joined for the wrong reasons. Sure, we were attacked, but the thought that we would have done nothing to stop this level of aggression & murder if not for Pearl Harbour is mind-boggling. I'm against war 99% of the time, (hell, I think the American Revolution was a manipulated war to protect the wealth of merchants & land owners) but if it's a situation of state-mandated genocide or aggression that threatens our allies (where containment has clearly failed), I believe action is justified (hopefully through the UN). The military action against Serbia & Milosevic is one case since World War II that I believe was justified, as his movement into Kosovo showed he could not be contained. It truly disgusts me when I hear Bush & the right comparing Saddam & the War in Iraq w/World War II, cause anyone with any knowledge of that era can tell that Saddam was just a garden variety dictator (like Noriega, Pinochet, & Charles Taylor, whom we all supported at one time), & that he was contained.

[LanternWaste]

37. In my opinion, Yes

We were the victim's of a pre-meditated attack by the government of Japan.

And while you mention that there was a dictator with the ambitions and means to achieve world domination, you leave out a neccesary qualifier: he was, and had been in the process of attempting to achieve that goal.

There was not simply one group of people being exterminated, there were dozens of groups being exterminated.

I say all this because I've heard the War on Terrorism and WWII being equated to each other in the above manner and in my opinion, the analogy is obviously false. Not that that is what your're trying to do, of course. But it's a good heads up to any liberal to be on the lookout for this type of argument.

Also, I read on this thread that the U.S. was doing very little up til Pearl Harbor. Well, Democrat's-- hold your heads up high. Roosevelt and the Democratic minority in congress were doing everything in their power to get us into the war prior to Pearl Harbor.

Imagine my surprise when I found out a few years ago that it was the Republicans (gasp!) that were attempting to prevent our entry. Although I would be remiss if I didn't mention the Dixiecrats had a hand in that, too.

It got to the point where the Republicans were actually contemplating challenging Roosevelt re: Lend Lease in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The Isolationsists were a string contingent in the U.S. and the Republicans and Dixiecrats both used this as part of their repective party platforms.

Sources-- Washington at War, David Broder
Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Paul Kennedy
Congressional Anecdotes, Prof. Paul Boller


Now... on to your question--
We were suddenly and deliberately attacked by the armed forces of the soveriegn government of Japan. That in and of itself is justification enough for the U.S. to wage war, at least in my opinion.

As an aside, within 16 hours of Pearl Harbor, the Joints Chief's had presented Roosevelt with operational plans and even though Hitler hadn't yet officially declared war on the U.S. yet, it was agreed that Europe would be the strategic priority.

[Endangered Specie]

41. Lets not forget Dresden either.

[rinsd]

45. That was the Brits though (nt)

[Endangered Specie]

53. It was both of us.

[denverbill]

44. A necessary war, with caveats.

I find it interesting, in hindsight, to compare Japan in 1941 with the US today.

What if OPEC embargoed oil to the US today? Would we be justified in attacking them to break the embargo?

Japan attacked the US because we supplied their oil, and had totally cut them off. They would have run out of oil within something like 6 months if they hadn't attacked the Dutch East Indies, which they did at the same time they attacked Pearl Harbor.

But that's another issue. The main issue is that both Japan and Germany were warmongering, expansionistic, and racist. If Japan had pulled out of China, we wouldn't have embargoed their oil. If Germany had stayed within it's own borders, we probably wouldn't have attacked Hitler.

[starroute]

48. American and British businessmen supported Hitler's rise to power

I'm still trying to get all the pieces sorted out, but it's clear that even during World War I, a large chunk of American business was more sympathetic to Germany than to Britain, that after the war there were things going on in the US government to cover this up and to enable American companies to continue doing business with German firms in violation of the Versailles Treaty, and then many of those business actively supported Hitler's rise to power and enabled the rearming of Germany in the 1930's.

Things were not much different in England. The Nazi sympathies of Edward VIII (who abdicated to become the Duke of Windsor) are well-known:

"Edward's relationship with Simpson created a great deal of scandal. So also did his political views. In 1934 he made comments suggesting he supported the British Union of Fascists. Wallis Simpson's reputation was also hurt by rumours that she was also having an affair with Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German Ambassador to Britain. She was also known to hold pro-Nazi political views.

<snip>

"Over the next two years Edward travelled extensively in Europe including visiting Nazi Germany where he met Adolf Hitler. When France was occupied by the German Army in 1940, Edward and his wife moved to Spain. In July 1940 the couple went to live in Portugal. Soon afterwards the Federal Bureau of Investigation received information that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were being used by the Nazis to obtain secrets about the Allies. On 13th September 1940, an FBI officer sent a memo to J. Edgar Hoover that: 'An agent has established conclusively that the Duchess of Windsor has recently been in touch with Joachim von Ribbentrop and was maintaining constant contact and communication with him. Because of their high official position, the duchess was obtaining a variety of information concerning the British and French official activities that she was passing on to the Germans.'

"The British government also discovered that Adolf Hitler planned to make Edward the puppet king of the United Kingdom if the Germans won the Second World War. When he heard the news, Winston Churchill, the British prime minister, arranged for the Duke of Windsor to leave Europe and become the governor of the Bahamas."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MONedwardVIII.htm


"One of the biggest public relations hoaxes ever perpetrated by the British Crown, is that King Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1938, due to his support for the Nazis, was a 'black sheep,' an aberration in an otherwise unblemished Windsor line. Nothing could be further from the truth. The British monarchy, and the City of London's leading Crown bankers, enthusiastically backed Hitler and the Nazis, bankrolled the Führer's election, and did everything possible to build the Nazi war machine, for Britain's planned geopolitical war between Germany and Russia.

<snip>

"On Nov. 20, 1995, the Washington Times reported, based on recently discovered Portuguese Secret Service files first published in the London Observer, that the Duke of Windsor had been in close collaboration with the Nazis in Spain and Portugal to foment a revolution in wartime Britain, that would topple the Churchill government, depose his brother King George VI, and allow him to regain the throne, with Queen Wallis at his side. Portuguese surveillance revealed that Walter Schellenberg, head of Gestapo counterintelligence, was one point of contact in this plot. After Schellenberg met with the Spanish ambassador to Portugal, Nicolás Franco, brother of fascist Gen. Francisco Franco, Ambassador Franco told a Portuguese diplomat: 'The Duke of Windsor, free from the responsibilities of the war, in disagreement with English politicians, could be the man to put at the head of the Empire.' "

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/naziroot.htm

[Cat Atomic]

51. Think of the horror. If Hitler had won, he might've installed one

of his loyal American supporters to rule America. It might've even been a hereditary title!

My goodness! We might all be saluting President Bush today if Hitler had won!