Pretty simple question: If we hadn't been attacked directly by an Axis power, should we have involved ourselves in that war, knowing what we knew then? That is, that Germany was intent on ruling the continent and projecting power further afield, and they didn't much like certain minority group (but we didn't know so much about the camps).

9/27/2011 5:29:34 PM

while the US involvement in WWII has been often debated....

i cannot comprehend what you're saying

9/27/2011 5:56:14 PM

We were involved in the war before the attack on Pearl Harbor. We were just pussyfooting around sending in ground troops.

The avalanche had already started.

9/27/2011 6:01:09 PM

FDR was doing everything in his power to get us to enter the war. But it was deeply unpopular among the voting class. I personally don't find it credible to suggest Germany could have kept Europe after the war. However, considering the death and destruction the war generated, even knowing what I know now, I would have stayed out of the war. Things might have turned out worse, but they turned out pretty badly as it was, better to role the dice. Provide men and material to defend Britain, China, etc., but no offensives.

9/27/2011 6:30:45 PM

WWII is a great example of why the reason we fight for wars is determined after they are over.

9/27/2011 11:09:58 PM

two words

zimmerman

note

9/27/2011 11:24:14 PM

The German Empire would have fallen in due time, just like the preceding European empires.

The case of the Japanese Empire would not be so clear. The history and level of development of those Asian nations were different, and they many were ripe for the taking by colonialists (like Taiwan). If left unopposed, it would have presented a fairly novel situation for the global power balance.

Whatever outcome played out, the real thing that matters is that the U.S. would have shit for political leverage after it all came to an end.

9/27/2011 11:59:38 PM

the zimmerman note was ww1 you fucking idiot.

9/28/2011 1:23:08 PM

Quote :

"Whatever outcome played out, the real thing that matters is that the U.S. would have shit for political leverage after it all came to an end."

Yeah. Luckily, we used our power for good, not evil.

...WHOOPS

9/28/2011 1:42:14 PM

We would have probably sunk into another economic slump if we had not gotten involved.

9/28/2011 2:37:51 PM

Recession? GO TO WAR! Thanks, Krugman.

[Edited on September 28, 2011 at 3:01 PM. Reason : ]

9/28/2011 3:00:47 PM

^^ Not at all. Everyone suspect FDR would lose the next election if not for the war. No more FDR, no more Great Depression.

9/28/2011 3:23:33 PM

always find it funny when people post serious replies in a troll thread

9/28/2011 3:45:19 PM

This is the Soap Box, where the line between trolling and legitimate discussion is blurred beyond recognition.

9/28/2011 3:50:00 PM

All of the worlds nations are the result of nazi style expansions and consolidations. should the fill in the blank have gone into fill in the larger area blank

10/9/2011 2:20:31 PM

If we had only fought Japan the soviets would have eventually won anyway most likely, and would have probably been much larger and more powerful post-war.

10/9/2011 2:27:24 PM

I agree. I think the Soviets would probably still have turned back the German march eastward, and we would have probably faced with a Soviet bloc stretching from France to the Far East.

That being said, could the United States have avoided the Second World War to begin with? After all, it was Japan that attacked the United States first (and that war I believe was probably inevitable, but that's a long academic discussion for another time), and I don't think the FDR administration could have responded with anything less than a declaration of war. Also, remember that it was the Germans that declared war on the United States after that, not the other way around, due to the alliance with Japan.

No, once the Japanese decided to cast the dice with the United States, the US and Germany were probably not going to be able to directly avoid conflict.

10/9/2011 4:57:36 PM

10/9/2011 10:26:26 PM

Absolutely.

LoneSnark suggests we should have gone on an exclusively defensive war. Recent history (with WWI) had shown what can happen when an enemy surrenders without having properly been defeated -- Germany itself had largely been untouched by the 1914 war, so that even after surrender there was a feeling that they hadn't really lost. And we saw how well that worked out.

It's quite possible that the Soviets would have flattened Germany and eventually Japan. That's a disaster for us and the world in general. A Stalin who had managed to conquer most of Europe and large chunks of Asia would face very few obstacles to world domination. By joining the war, we end up with a solid bloc of allies that, coupled with nuclear weapons, made the Russians think twice. But if I've got an empire going from Paris to Tokyo, it's not a tough choice to decide to try to take out Britain (already exhausted from WWII) and start in on the US.

It disgusts me that anybody could ignore the moral imperative to stop the atrocities associated with the axis powers.

The war was awful, but we'd also be remiss if we didn't mention that it was mostly awful for other parts of the world. This country came out with relatively little damage, and the war prompted economic recovery and some major social changes that have benefited us.

Quote :

"Yeah. Luckily, we used our power for good, not evil."

I'm not thrilled with some of what we did with our power, but either way I'm glad to have it. I'd rather dictate terms to the rest of the world than have terms dictated to me.

10/10/2011 12:00:04 AM

Quote :

"That's a disaster for us and the world in general. A Stalin who had managed to conquer most of Europe and large chunks of Asia would face very few obstacles to world domination."

As I said, I suspect the military might required to retain such an empire would exceed the ability of the soviet union, nevermind having enough left over to invade further. Either way, the political disintegration of the USSR would have come sooner than 1989.

10/10/2011 1:26:30 AM

So...what are the benefits of the United States not joining? Would the war have been shorter? Would less people have died? Would a more optimal outcome have occurred for that time and/or the future?

10/10/2011 1:59:07 AM

Quote :

"As I said, I suspect the military might required to retain such an empire would exceed the ability of the soviet union, nevermind having enough left over to invade further."

Based on what? As things were, the USSR managed to keep a pretty good lid on half of Europe (to say nothing of central Asia) for the better part of half a century, all while simultaneously constructing a major military and participating in proxy wars all over the world. And who was going to throw off their shackles in Europe? The French couldn't successfully kick out a German army that was far more busy on the Eastern front. A big part of Germany itself stayed under the Soviet yoke for the duration of the Cold War. The Italians couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Meanwhile, the political disintegration of the USSR came about in large part because it couldn't compete with the West in many key regards. If the commies had taken over half of the West in WWII, how in God's name would their collapse be hastened? Especially considering that a USA that stays out of the war is a USA with the backwards, laughing-stock military capacity we had until we started moving to join.

10/10/2011 2:36:40 AM

Quote :

"So...what are the benefits of the United States not joining? Would the war have been shorter? Would less people have died? Would a more optimal outcome have occurred for that time and/or the future?"

The war would have been shorter, with Germany winning after fighting with Russia to a stalemate. Less people would have died. However, it is unclear what the political outcome would have been. It very well may have been worse, but it was pretty bad as it was.

10/10/2011 11:54:27 AM

Quote :

"Less people would have died."

What do you base that assumption on?

Quote :

"It very well may have been worse, but it was pretty bad as it was."

The post-war political and economic reality for the US, UK, and it allies, was a half century of unprecedented freedom and prosperity. Get real.

10/10/2011 3:58:08 PM

Let's see...I could risk my life to fight a war against an oppressive, genocidal government and secure peace and prosperity for generations to come, and as a bonus, stemming the flow of another oppressive, genocidal government to boot. Or, I could sit back and do nothing and let people be rounded up into Konzentrationslagern and Gulags if they're unlucky, shot in the middle of the night if they're lucky, or live out the rest of their days under the watchful eye of a state that will do anything to squash disagreement, free thought, or just about anything else that threatens their power base. Because it doesn't directly affect me.

Is human life truly the only metric we consider when we go to war? Is that all that matters, the preservation of life, no matter what squalor and tyranny continues unchecked? What kind of life is worth living, knowing that you can't bear to risk your own personal comfort and well-being for your fellow man? I just...cannot comprehend the mindset of a man who thinks that war is always better left un-waged. "War is not its own end, except in some catastrophic slide into absolute damnation. It's peace that's wanted. Some better peace than the one you started with."

But, when all is said and done, if the vast majority of citizens felt that there was almost nothing worth fighting for, then so be it. Let that country cease to exist, if its people so will it.

[Edited on October 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2011 5:43:30 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark suggests we should have gone on an exclusively defensive war. Recent history (with WWI) had shown what can happen when an enemy surrenders without having properly been defeated -- Germany itself had largely been untouched by the 1914 war, so that even after surrender there was a feeling that they hadn't really lost. And we saw how well that worked out. "

If it were not for Germany invading Belgium as a shortcut to France, could it not be argued that the Triple Alliance was in the right. WW1 is one we could have sat out and let europe burn itself to the ground.

WW2 , i do not think we had much choice.

10/11/2011 2:22:33 PM