Was it acceptable to ally with Uncle Joe in WWII?

[GhostWriter16]

Considering how much your parents, and by extention, you, have benefited from the Great Society opposition to them is laughable.

That's just Johnson and I was actually referring to the Vietnam war more than anything else. No, I don't agree with the Great Society, but there's more to these things than economics.

Adams isn't as bad as the other two on that list though. Adams censored speech but didn't start a war, Johnson started a war AND was crappy on economics but didn't censor speech, Wilson started a war AND censored speech. Thus putting Wilson in the #2 slot after FDR. Actually, I think I'd probably say Wilson was even worse, because for all of his crap, FDR's war was worth fighting.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

It was justified since the Axis were the aggressors.

A lot of things were not justified, though, like Roosevelt betraying Eastern Europe.

I agree. There was no need to abandon Eastern Europe to the communists.

 

[Dachs]

It wasn't just a refusal to trade, we were also openly supporting Americans fighting in China against the Japanese.

Which is predated by the Japanese attacks on American civilians and American servicemen resulting in the deaths of several of the latter.

Insofar as Japan actually had something that can be described as "foreign policy" in the 1930s and the early 1940s - and it really did, despite the Army-Navy tensions and the very real disconnect between many organs of the state - it was crude, rapacious, immoral, and vile. The measured opposition to that policy that the United States espoused was one of the only moral ways to approach the Japanese. It does not excuse the laxness with which the Americans' Pacific forces approached the impending crisis, whether that laxness was conditioned by insouciance in the military, poor policy on the part of the government, or a combination of the two. But a debate over whether the Japanese assaults in early December 1941 were unexpected violations of international law is to miss the point. Whether the American government and American military could theoretically have done a better job of preparing for a Japanese response to the American policy is inconsequential next to the Japanese decision to opt for war at all.

The Japanese had a very simple solution to the diplomatic and economic problems the United States posed them with in 1941: abandon the aggressive war in China. ("Simple" here does not mean "easy". And it is dubious whether such an action would have been possible to execute.) It was not the survival of the Japanese Empire that was at stake in 1941, it was the survival of that empire's expansionist conquests on the Asiatic mainland. Excusing the subsequent actions that the Japanese military took against the United States, the Dutch, and the Commonwealth and laying the blame at the feet of the US State Department is to excuse the Japanese war of aggression and the war crimes attendant on it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I agree. There was no need to abandon Eastern Europe to the communists.

I used to think that until I shook off the neoconservatism of my youth

We could never have taken Russia, nor should we have tried. Germany yes, Russia no.

 

[bhsup]

Hey Dachs, quick question for you (though you may make the answer as quick or as long, or just ignore it, as you like.)

In hindsight, from the Japanese POV, should they have tried to take the Hawaiian Islands? And could they have even had a chance of doing so if they'd mustered all their forces that they used at the onset of their Pacific campaign into one massive strike?

It just seems to my layman's mind that perhaps rolling back the US fleet all the way back to the west coast and making Hawaii their Truk in the central Pacific would have given them a lot more freedom to then take everything else they wanted.

 

[Patroklos]

I used to think that until I shook off the neoconservatism of my youth

We could never have taken Russia, nor should we have tried. Germany yes, Russia no.

We didn't have to, standing up to them during negotiations or at the very least recognizing Stalin was a most or allied out of nothing but convinience (which Roosevelt did not do) would have made the post war a moderately different place.

At some point Stalin mastered Roosevelt and realized that neutralized Churchill. From that point on he did whatever he pleased.

 

[Takhisis]

It was justified since the Axis were the aggressors.

A lot of things were not justified, though, like Roosevelt betraying Eastern Europe.

This.

 

[innonimatu]

Why do people commenting on Roosevelt's actions keep neglecting the rather obvious fact that his main goal during WW2 was always to break up the British Empire? At which he succeeded brilliantly.

Those territorials were the ones over which the US had a good shot at extending its influence in the post war. Trying to grab influence in Eastern Europe and Asia was biting too much, making the US dependent on too many alliances. He went for what his country could get. Favoring Stalin in an arrangement to split the world was smart, a necessary step in the path to consolidating american hegemony over "the west" by making it a necessary ally of the (western) europeans. Just think, no cold War, no NATO... The guy was a brilliant strategist, the beginner of a new kind of imperialism that the US went on to play extremely effectively. Not that I'm claiming his plan included NATO, he wanted the UN to be the tool of american hegemony along with the USSR, but it would happen with the UK and France stripped of their empires.

 

[Agent327]

Since the Allies did indeed ally with the USSR (that is the same allies that tried to destroy it after the October Revolution), apparently yes.

 

[Crezth]

I don't buy the "Japan is innocent" crap either. Sure we refused to trade with them, that doesn't justify war!

You're absolutely right. Japan was far, far from "innocent."

 

[Dachs]

Hey Dachs, quick question for you (though you may make the answer as quick or as long, or just ignore it, as you like.)

In hindsight, from the Japanese POV, should they have tried to take the Hawaiian Islands? And could they have even had a chance of doing so if they'd mustered all their forces that they used at the onset of their Pacific campaign into one massive strike?

It just seems to my layman's mind that perhaps rolling back the US fleet all the way back to the west coast and making Hawaii their Truk in the central Pacific would have given them a lot more freedom to then take everything else they wanted.

That would have required the military capacity to capture the Hawaiian islands. I don't believe that they had the shipping available to do that, the naval power to suppress Pearl Harbor, or the available ground forces to both capture and garrison the area. As it was, their army and navy were painfully overextended in late 1941 and early 1942. They'd have had to give up other, easier avenues of attack in order to even think about mounting a Hawaiian operation.

 

[r16]

must read the whole thread , but ı must say a reason Japan immediately shot itself in the foot was Pearl Harbour itself . A fleetbattle off Philippinnes in December 41 or even January 42 could have hurt the USN so badly that it is barely conceivable that Washington might have political disputes great enough to ask for an armistice of a short period , which might have influenced the Chinese and other opponents of Japan so that Tokyo could arm properly , but as said the chance is slim . Pearl Harbour made sure the fight would be non-stop .

at this weird forum , ı had once read funny things about USS Reuben James .

 

[Dachs]

must read the whole thread , but ı must say a reason Japan immediately shot itself in the foot was Pearl Harbour itself . A fleetbattle off Philippinnes in December 41 or even January 42 could have hurt the USN so badly that it is barely conceivable that Washington might have political disputes great enough to ask for an armistice of a short period , which might have influenced the Chinese and other opponents of Japan so that Tokyo could arm properly , but as said the chance is slim .

Yeah, the problem with that is that while it was the IJN's strategic objective to force the American Battle Fleet into an engagement in the Philippine Sea on unfavorable conditions, the Americans had to be weakened considerably before the Japanese could bring an equivalent battle fleet to bear against them. It's worth remembering that most of the Japanese admirals still thought in terms of relative battleship strength, and the Americans possessed far more of these than the IJN was comfortable having so close to the Home Islands. Without the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese believed that any effort to draw the Americans into an engagement would work against the IJN, not in its favor.

 

[r16]

the Japanese didn't have much problems dealing with the cruisers in the Java Sea with cruisers , though ı must admit ı haven't done a through comparision of forces . The Japanese high command had enough confidence in carriers despite individuals' preference or lack of experience in aviation to send them halfway across the Pasific to start the war with a move that was deemed to be their best shot . The Japanese had expected to lose a quarter of their Navy , even with Pearl Harbour .

 

[red_elk]

Cobra and the destruction of Army Group Center are directly comparable in terms of political and military effect, along with territories liberated. Cobra had greater political relevance and was a severe shakeup to the Nazi hierarchy and the military, and had an enormous impact among the German citizenry.

We are on the same page then.
Still, the scale of Bagration operation was about twice more than the scale of entire "Overlord".

We also have the performance of the allies in North Africa and Italy, again with no western formation suffering the fate of hundreds of Russian divisions.

The reason of initial Soviet defeats was the same as the reason of Allies defeat in France. They were essentially outmaneuvered and cut off supply lines - German blitzkrieg masterwork. The difference is that the Westerners could afford the luxury to surrender and be treated well in captive, but the Russians often had to continue fighting in a hopeless situation.

As for North Africa, 3-years long campaign by forces involved and casualties was less than a single battle on Eastern front, such as Kursk or Moscow battles.

And if we take Stalingrad battle, by German casualties it was comparable to entire Western front in Europe.

 

[Quackers]

Yes



You did not do that. You said



which was not expected by anyone.

You'll have far more luck engaging people in conversation if you're honest about it.

? What are you talking out of dude?
So, what could the western allies have done to remove the Soviets?

Also:

So you expected the exhausted western alies to declare war on the SU and start another war with 10s of millions of deaths?

I suggest a possible solution to free the eastern europeans which would be favourable to your position. Seems reasonable to me.

I suggested a war and I then called it a solution - nothing excluding in that. I didn't change any solution here.

So wheres the super negotiator who was going to persuade the Russians to voluntarily leave the Eastern territories?

 

[Leoreth]

That may not have been his immediate goal, but I don't think Hitler would really have been content with just Europe. You might think he would have been, but that's just an assumption.

And on what do you base this assumption? I guess we're back to this whole "evil and crazy leaders could do anything even if there's no good reason for it" spiel of yours again.

America got into the conflict by (rightfully, imo) protecting its interests, not defending itself. Making your anti-interventionist rhetoric hypocritical.

I don't buy the "Japan is innocent" crap either. Sure we refused to trade with them, that doesn't justify war!

Where did I ever say that Japan was innocent? It sure wasn't, so please don't argue against positions that no one has taken. What I have said is that "Japan has sneak attacked us!" is not an accurate description of the situation since the US-Japanese conflict started long before that (and it wasn't just the refusal to trade). Again, I'm not arguing that it was wrong to oppose Japan, I'm just saying that this position is incompatible with anti-interventionism.

 

[Patroklos]

The reason of initial Soviet defeats was the same as the reason of Allies defeat in France. They were essentially outmaneuvered and cut off supply lines - German blitzkrieg masterwork. The difference is that the Westerners could afford the luxury to surrender and be treated well in captive, but the Russians often had to continue fighting in a hopeless situation.

As for North Africa, 3-years long campaign by forces involved and casualties was less than a single battle on Eastern front, such as Kursk or Moscow battles.

And if we take Stalingrad battle, by German casualties it was comparable to entire Western front in Europe.

All irrelevant to what I said. While many a Russian division fell victim to maneuver, many fully maned and armed (in many cases better armed, especially in armor) and supplied Russian divisions were simply annihilated in straight meeting engagements. We can attribute this to any number or reasons from training to tactics to communications to command style and so on and so on but at the end of the day there were few if any Western formations that suffered that fate.

Changing the scale doesn't help you, as the fate of Soviet armies (indeed sometimes whole fronts) were often the same as Soviet divisions.

I want to make clear that I am not claiming that the Soviets never had successes, or that there were never times where they outfought the Germans unit for unit (full strength).

 

[Cutlass]

Hey Dachs, quick question for you (though you may make the answer as quick or as long, or just ignore it, as you like.)

In hindsight, from the Japanese POV, should they have tried to take the Hawaiian Islands? And could they have even had a chance of doing so if they'd mustered all their forces that they used at the onset of their Pacific campaign into one massive strike?

It just seems to my layman's mind that perhaps rolling back the US fleet all the way back to the west coast and making Hawaii their Truk in the central Pacific would have given them a lot more freedom to then take everything else they wanted.

Assuming they could have, that might have delayed the final outcome, but would not have changed it. The Japanese just could not ramp up strength after 1941 like we could.

 

[kochman]

I can't even stomach more than a few replies on this thread...

Dominate the world? They weren't comic book villains.

No, Stalin and Hitler were both real life villains. You are correct. Hitler wanted to dominate the world... denying this is pointless. Stalin was just more patient about it. He'd already tried imperialism and failed... in part because of his murdering specific groups (in this case, military purges).

Who forced FDR's hand to lend and lease?

Trade programs are not acts of war. FDR kept us out of it until we had no choice.

Difference: Stalin didn't implement policies designed exclusively to exterminate an entire group of individuals. He may have been a paranoid nutter whose agriculture policies bordered on stupidity but he wasn't trying to commit genocide.

Actually he did... Ukrainians, Cossacks, military generals/commanders.

Not really. Remember, Stalin for the most part shifted the Soviet foreign policy away from promoting world revolution and toward building 'socialism in one country'.

Which explains his invasion of Finland and later taking the entire Eastern Bloc while funding movements elsewhere in the world.

Proportionally? Pol Pot. For one.

Proportionally was nowhere near what was asked... and Pol Pot was a US Ally. Formy made a false claim, that we are currently allies with worse than CCCP under Stalin. He cannot back it up with any facts, whatsoever, par for the course. It is just something extremists say to sound angsty and cool.