Was America's Entrance Into WW2 justified?

[ButterflyBlood]

Poll question: Was America's Entrance Into WW2 justified?

suggested that Carlos do this in another thread, I thought I'd do it for him. :)

I voted yes for the record.

[TheBigGuy]

1. We where justified in going to war with Japan.

...not so sure about Nazi Germany, although they did declare war on us.

[Walt Starr]

2. We first declared war on Japan

We did not declare war on Germany until Germany declared war on us. Once war is declared on you, you have no choice but to go to war.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. We Should Have Got In Alot Sooner

on humanitarian grounds:

Don't forget it was the right in America, the America Firsters , who tied FDR's hands....

[CarlBallard]

6. America Firsters

Here's a cartoon by Dr Seuss (who was an editorial cartoonist before he was a children's author).

[durutti]

10. Disagree

The U.S. and other countries had ample opportunity to take in Jewish refugees before they were sent to the camps. We wouldn't have been able to save all of them, but we would've been able to save most of them.

Also, Hitler might not have been able to conquer much of Europe had it not been for the support of U.S. corporations.

Of course, the U.S. ultimately was attacked (arguably due in part to its earlier poor decision-making). After that point, it had a legitimate right to self-defense.

[doubleplusgood]

3. did we have a choice ?

We were attacked by Japan & soon thereafter Germany declared war on us.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Dumb question!

We were attacked by Imperial Japan. One could either go to war, or surrender. Those were the only choices that were available to us.

Ironically, we didn't had to go to war with Germany, but Hitler declared war on us first.

Waging war on the Axis Powers during WWII fits the definition of a just war. The war on Iraq was not a just war, even the Pope made a big point about that when he warned America and Britain against an attack on Iraq.

On edit:

I didn't mean to imply that your question was dumb, doubleplusgood! I was referring to the question in the poll. Thanks.

[ButterflyBlood]

14. actually it was made to prove a point to Carlos

in the Afghanistan thread Carlos said that some DU'ers would never support any military action, and not even support WWII, so someone suggested he make this poll. I did it for him.

[Blue_Chill]

4. We were attacked

and I think Germany declared war on us first.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. What I want to know

Who the hell voted no and why?

[ButterflyBlood]

8. freeper lurker

obvious reasons

[TakebackAmerica]

9. Exactly what I wanted to Know!

WWW2 is the only 20th Century war I support.

I bet the no vote was just a joke.
If it wasn't, that is one screwed up Hitler lovin' moron.

[On the Road]

11. Germany and Japan Were Both Violent Agressors

and going to war against them was justified for that reason.

We really entered the war with Japan well before Pearl Harbor. We were sinking Japanese commerical vessels right and left, which was an act of war. In that sense, the war was initiated by the US over Manchuko.

Whatever the economic injustices between the wars, a German invasion was completely illegitimate. Our allies were invaded. We shoud not have stood by. And in retrospect, fighting the Nazis was essential because they were close to developing the atom bomb.

[CentristDemocrat]

12. Well, when we allowed Japan to attack us.....

I guess we were "justified".

[Sterling]

21. Dont you think that

we would have been better off actually "catching" the Japs while they staged the attack rather than "letting" them attack us?

Pearl was quit different from 9-11. If you care to continue discussing it I would be happy to go over why in great detail but you might want to rethink that little bit of right wing urban myth.

[CentristDemocrat]

22. Why were a good number of our vessels moved off base?

Prior to the attack. Btw, how is this a right-wing myth?

[DoNotRefill]

29. They were out of Pearl...

because a significant fraction of the navy is constantly out of port. If you'd ever lived near a large navy base, you'd understand this. ;-)

[DoNotRefill]

15. Hmmm...I voted yes, but...

We (and the rest of the allies) basically pushed Germany and Japan into war with us. With Germany, the way we handled the Armistice for WWI virtually guaranteed another war, and greatly aided Hitler in taking power. I know it's grossly unpopular to blame France for anything, but they fucked things up by being the prime movers behind "punishing" Germany, which caused absolute chaos in Germany, which was why Hitler was able to gain power. With Japan, we basically tried to starve them into submission.

If we had acted differently on a long-term level, the war might not have been necessary.

I'll just climb into my Nomex suit now.... ;-)

[Solly Mack]

16. Nah, the Ruhr Occupation is still argued by historians

cause/effect will always be open to debate...

[DoNotRefill]

17. I can't help but think...

that the punative provisions of Versailles put Germany in such a weakened position that social chaos was inevitable, along with the total collapse of the Mark. I think that was a deliberate plan on the part of the French, in an effort to bankrupt the Germans so that they'd never be able to wage war again. Had the allies stuck with Wilson's 14 points, I think Hitler probably would have remained a lunatic right-wing fringe guy, and there would have been no way he would have come to power.

Without the gross social upheaval caused by the treaty going on, lots of the things that happened wouldn't have come to pass.

[DODI]

18. I am a llittle rusty, so please correct me --

I belive it was Henry Cabot Lodge who killed any chance of the US joining the League of Nations. He fought Wilson every step of the way (A great book about that is "The Great Divide" (I think that's the name, I read it 20 years ago). Had the U.S. joined the League it has be theorized that the League would have put a stop to France's demand for cash from the Germans. Does anyone remember if Mr. Lodge was a Republican?

[DoNotRefill]

25. I think...

that the League of Nations was formed AFTER the terms of Versailles were laid down. I'm not positive about this, but I think that is the case.

[Solly Mack]

20. The Thyssen/Hitler connection was birthed at this time, yes

and industrialists played a (some say, "the") major role in aiding Hitler to power...

[DoNotRefill]

24. Ahhh..but WHY was it made?

The Industrialists gave Hitler the go-ahead because they were faced with the prospect of losing everything to the real-live communists. Remember, there were several cases where cities were taken over by both right wing and communist forces (not at the same time, of course), with the result of both white and red terrors.

If it hadn't been for the economic devastation caused by Versailles, moderate groups like the SDs would have been able to maintain control under Weimar.

[Solly Mack]

26. Oh, I agree that ,often times, what is viewed as

"punishment" can set the stage for future "crimes"...

and that punishment is often doled out with an agenda...that is to say, justice isn't the primary motivation...

[Sterling]

19. This is rather moot since war was declared by Germany and Japan first

But who cares about little details like that?

[JVS]

23. I voted yes.

I have seen arguments that Britain and France should not have declared war on Germany in 1939 on the basis that they did not have the might to back it up and could have more constructively prepared for war by not pushing the issue.

[Ein]

27. No

I say our war against Japan was justified, being as they attacked us, even though we cut thier oil supplies for the most part. But our support of (Corps.) Hitler, and our war against the Nazi's had no justification. Russia killed Germany anyways.

[DoNotRefill]

28. It was a cooperative effort.

If it weren't for all of the allies fighting together and the Axis being totally confused, we would have lost. I often marvel that we won, considering just how close it really was. What's so bizarre is that if Italy had come in on the Allied side (or even remained neutral) at the beginning of the war, I think we probably would have ended up losing the war. Without Italy, Barbarossa would have gone in early May instead of late June, and I think the Nazis would have had an excellent chance of knocking the USSR out of the war before winter truly set in. If that had happened, England would have eventually fallen, and a separate peace would have been inevitable. As it was, the USSR was kept going through sheer bloody-mindedness and allied supplies, until winter set in. If the Japanese had kept pressure up on Zhukov, the Germans might have still pulled it out.

There are 6 or 7 "touch and go" points in the war where the Axis was a hair's breadth away from winning. Had they won just one of those battles, they would have won the entire war. They lost them all. That's about as close to proof of a God as anything I've ever seen.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Thanks

We now have one ridiculous explanation of the no voting. Anyone else?

[buddhamama]

31. i voted Yes

1. we didn't have a choice (at that point anyway. could situations have been different, sure, hindsight-you know) and,

2. imho, we should have done something sooner for humanitarian reasons. we could have saved millions of lives.