Guys, just for the amusement of all, can we agree to be quiet and let this thread just be an argument between jpg (US shouldn't have entered WWII) and putin (it doesn't matter, we made no difference anyway)?

"Hey Nelhybel, tell that to the Shias who got massacred when they revolted against Saddam but the U.S. decided not to knock off Saddam in 1991 because then Iran would get too powerful. People get massacred all over the world when the U.S. could act. America can't be expected to save everyone all over the world."

...

For ALL of the 6 million of my people who were burned, beaten, tortured, and gassed, and for my Jewish grandfather and all the grandfathers who fought in Germany to free them...

FUCK.
YOU.

You officially win the Heartless Piece of Shit Award.

Congrats!

Now, why don't you go cry over that terrorist we just killed instead of insulting the greatest human tragedy in modern history...

"Ok santa, so you are accepting the premise that when you cut off all oil supplies to someone, they are likely to fight you or attempt to gain oil supplies somewhere else? So why, oh why, would the Roosevelt administration establish an embargo? Because they knew it would start a war or at least a preemptive strike."

Funny because FDR resisted an embargo to avoid war even after Japan invaded Vietnam, and Dean Acheson went over his head to enforce the embargo.

and to answer your question, the state department which implemented the embargo had seen the economic subservience of China to the US as the cornerstone goal in US foreign policy for almost 100 years.

@obiwanobiwan
I don't know what you wanted me to answer that statement with. I do believe the Holocaust was an enormous human tragedy, and I don't see what statement I made that makes me such a "heartless piece of shit." Am I being criticized because I say that the U.S. should not have been involved in World War Two, and this would have furthered the Holocaust? Or am I being criticized for comparing it to massacres of the Iraqi Shias? But while I do believe the Holocaust was among the greatest human tragedies in modern history, I do not think it was the worst. Nearly 30 million Chinese died in the Great Leap Forward, and 16 million Russian civilians were killed in World War Two. You will likely call me a douchebag for the statement I just made.

you forgot the 10 million chinese that died in the harmless Japanese war of aggression you so happily support

@Tolstoy - I think the point was that we crossed the Atlantic to get to the UK, from which we crossed the channel.

@Putin - though we didn't do all that much to help Russia, we diverted some German troops away from the Russian front (not many, but some) and did give you lots of war material. Russians flew US made planes, drove US made trucks. But even though what we did didn't directly contribute to the Soviets winning, you would have been like the Chinese in Korea without us - overstretched supply lines and undersupplied troops. It would have been a much slower advance through Russia.

And to whoever said the German troops were pretty much beat by December 1941, tell that to the citizens of Leningrad, or Stalingrad, or the troops who fought in Italy from 1943-1945, or the British in Holland in September 1944, or the Americans in the Benelux in December 1945. The Germans "were beat" (At least on the western front) twice. August 1944, and late March 1945.

I didn't say the Germans were beat. I said their best chance for knocking Russia out of the war (if you kick in the door the whole rotten structure will come crashing down---Alfred Jodl) was over by December 1941, and that they would not have been able to invade Britain at that point either.

Bottom line, even if the US did nothing to divert the German and Italian troops in North africa Italy and Western Europe (which they did), or provided material through Archangel (which they did) as Putin will suggest was useless, Russia would not have easily survived a potential Japanese attack from the east while fighting a death struggle in the west.

Right, because without US help against Japan, the British would have been pulled out of East Asia, all supply lines to China cut, and perhaps Australia invaded, giving the Japanese a lot more room to work with in the East. Without supplies, the Chinese would have been done for.

Japan wouldn't have invaded Russia from the East, they would have been busy already with their occupation/conquest/pacification efforts in China and the rest of Southeast Asia. Japan and Russia nearly did come to war in August 1939, but had signed a peace treaty by then, and Japan's lack of an attack during Germany's invasion of Russia meant Russia could use crucial Siberian units from the East as reserves

On what calculations are you basing that chestnut on? What about US intervention before 1941? What would have happened without cash and carry or Lend Lease or armored merchant men or the secret naval war that was raging before 1941? Would Britain have survived then?

"Japan wouldn't have invaded Russia from the East, they would have been busy already with their occupation/conquest/pacification efforts in China and the rest of Southeast Asia. Japan and Russia nearly did come to war in August 1939, but had signed a peace treaty by then, and Japan's lack of an attack during Germany's invasion of Russia meant Russia could use crucial Siberian units from the East as reserves "

Oh ye because we know the Tripartite powers valued their treaties

The U.S. destroyer loan turned out to be unimportant. The air battle was what really mattered, and Britain won that largely without U.S. assistance.

Oh yay! more unsubstantiated claims! Where do you get that one from Jpg.

"So make sure all your pacific battleships, still considered esential to naval warfare, were in port to be blown up without a fight."

The battleships were all twenty years old and so slow they'd never be able to bring a hostile fleet to battle. Brand spanking new battleships that were due to replace them were just starting to sail out of the shipyards. All of the carriers and nearly all of the modern cruisers were away at sea that day as well. I'm not completely sold on the Pearl Harbor foreknowledge hypothesis (my comment was half in jest), but I don't think it's an unreasonable theory when stacked up against the official explanation (incompetence the likes of which has seldom been seen in all of military history).

"I think the point was that we crossed the Atlantic to get to the UK, from which we crossed the channel."

That is what he was saying, but my point was that the invasion of Normandy was about 20,000 times simpler and easier than a proposed German invasion of the East Coast would have been, even if Britain had been conquered or otherwise neutralized.

Did england and germany have a naval battle or an aerial battle in august 1940...? Yea...

Actually they had both you dumb fuck, ever heard about the battle of the atlantic and the huge amount of tonnage Britain was losing annually.

"Uh... the Allied forces crossed the English Channel, not the Atlantic, in the invasion of Normandy. Landing, supporting, and supplying an invasion force through 3,000 miles of hostile water (with no nearby friendly bases) to land on hostile beaches without air superiority is a whole different ball of wax."

+1 :)

"Uh... the Allied forces crossed the English Channel, not the Atlantic, in the invasion of Normandy. Landing, supporting, and supplying an invasion force through 3,000 miles of hostile water (with no nearby friendly bases) to land on hostile beaches without air superiority is a whole different ball of wax."

According to one of my students WWI started when the Germans attacked the US because they wanted to turn us all Communist.

Then again she probably has a better handle on history than Jpg...

" don't know what you wanted me to answer that statement with."

How about "Yes, I was wrong, we SHOULD ahve gone over to Europe to stop the Holocaust and free France and oppressed people and not let Hitler and the most evil nation to ever exist dominate Europe?"

" I do believe the Holocaust was an enormous human tragedy, and I don't see what statement I made that makes me such a "heartless piece of shit.""

Maybe the fact you call it an enormous tragedy and yet see it as being unworthy of US attention, or else not a cause Americans should have died to stop? Sort of like saying "Yes, slavery was a terrible practice...but we shouldn't have fought a War Between States to end it!"

(And yes, I know there was FAR MORE to the Civil War than slavery and the North was hypocritical on the slavery point to an extent, it's a loose example.)

"Am I being criticized because I say that the U.S. should not have been involved in World War Two, and this would have furthered the Holocaust?"

...Yeeeeessss...I mean, it's not like you can argue the war would've been won without the USA's help...I'm not an "America--Fuck Yeah!" kind of guy, but this is one instance where, yeah, the USA was a savior of sorts, the USA for coming in to help and the UK for essentially taking the pounding of the Nazis and getting the tar bombed out of them and STILL fighting on and the USSR for their part...all three worked to end the War, and all three were crucial.

So yeah--no USA, the UK gets crushed eventually despite its incredible and inspirational stand, Hitler takes the continent, fascism flourishes...who's going to end the Holocaust?

Who's going to stop the REST of the Jews in Europe from being massacred?

Who?

Not the USSR, THEY now have to either fight Hitler alone or else make a peace with him...and even if they fought on, it's not as if stopping genocide would've been high on their to-do list, they'd be fighting a whole continent alone and possibly two if Japan kept it up and nipped them from the other side...

So yes--no USA equals the deaths of all the European Jews.

Israel's Bureau of Statistics puts the total population of Jews--secular or religious--worldwide at around 13.5 million.

So essentially, add 6 milllion to that...20 million...

Hitler ALREADY killed 1/4 of the Jewish population in the world at the time...what's to stop him killing far, far more if the US doesn't help?

AND all the culture that went with them! The Yiddish language of my grandparents and great-grandparents is practically DEAD in the world thanks to this guy! Books and plays and articles...the literature of a whole people...wiped out! Burned away!

How much more would we have lost if the US hadn't entered?!

So yes, voting the US stay out of it is essentially voting for the UK to get the tar bombed out of it and conquered--and judging by your anti-Anglo sentiments, you seem fine with that already--and allowing the Holocaust to continue, as there would have been no English, American, French, or even Russian force powerful enough to stop it!

"Or am I being criticized for comparing it to massacres of the Iraqi Shias?
"

No, you're not being criticized there...I'd argue the Holocaust was worse for the reasons I gave, but that's partially a cultural bias and in no way is meant to diminish ANOTHER huge tragedy and atrocity of the last century, and one we SHOULD have stopped too! I'd argue we should've stopped Darfur as well! And Rwanda! Damnit, we've got this military we tout so much, why not use it to go fight genocide with the world in a coalition a la the Gulf War effort rather than fight for caves and desert dust?

"But while I do believe the Holocaust was among the greatest human tragedies in modern history, I do not think it was the worst. Nearly 30 million Chinese died in the Great Leap Forward, and 16 million Russian civilians were killed in World War Two."

Both are immense tragedies.

But the Chinese died of famine and the Russians--at least in part--died fighting...some went to camps, yes, but many died fighting in the cities.

And there were and are plenty more Russians and Chinese, whereas the Ashkenazis and Yiddish Language, again, were nearly wiped out, and not even in a fight or because of a famine, but rather in camps where they were beaten, burned, gassed, and used as lab rats in unspeakable experiments.

The Holocaust nearly destroyed an entire PEOPLE...MY People.

So for that, I think it's the greatest tragedy and atrocity in human history...maybe its my cultural bias again, but this time, I definitely think its justified.

"You will likely call me a douchebag for the statement I just made."

For the above statements...I've already called you a heartless piece of shit and a hypocrite who'd rather see English and Jewish people die than terrorists or fight Hitler and save the continent and free world...

What more can I add to that?

(The fact that with England gone, Europe subdued, Russia choked, and Japan growing, the Axis could've attacked America easily on BOTH Coasts...and so your decision to not have Americans fight would have destroyed both of my ancestor's homes--Germany/Austria and Poland/Russia--AS WELL AS my people there AS WELL AS my family in New York at the time AS WELL AS our current home in Los Angeles and LA County AS WELL AS essentially destroy my culture and many others...AS WELL AS lead to MORE that the amount of American deaths via more Russian, English, Jewish, and American deaths once the Nazis and Japanese reached our shores AS WELL AS the massive and perhaps irreperable structural and cultural damage that would've been done to the Jewish community, Europe as a whole, and possibly the American coastlines??? Yeah.........that'll do as a response there.......)

a couple of points here lads.
1) Germany could never have even attempted an amphibious assault on the east coast of the USA, they barely had enough landing ships for Operation Sealon. in fact, they were going to sail across the channel in river barges. It was logistically impossible for Germany to invade the US. Perhaps a small raid, no more.
2) the Allies, especially the US, did a whole lot (mostly unacknowledged by the Soviets) to help on the eastern front. Lorries, jeeps, food, bullets, oil, even tanks (although their own were thought superior), it all came across the atlantic and into Russia's northern ports. Again, logistics.
Remember this: amateurs study tactics, professional soldiers study logistics.

1. Fair enough, Marti the Bruce, but bombing raids would still ahve damaged US infastructure and cost lives...and what's to say with all of Europe under its control, all those resources, and the possibility of either a subdued or peace-signing Russia that the Nazisnwouldn't have built a larger fleet (or, perhaps, the Bomb first, and dropped it on New York or Washington D.C.?)
2. I don't think I disputed that...if anything, that'd support my assertion that the Russians would've been forced to peace or curshed with no USA/UK aid.

you're gonna be getting an earful of Putin later

OK Tolstoy,

If the US knew what was coming and only wanted a couple of explosions and a bunch of dead veteran sailors, why did the attack leave them so woefully under prepared in the pacific. Why were the Philippines so woefully under-defended? Why six months later did the US, with foreknowledge of Japanese fleet movements, risk meeting the Grand Japanese fleet with merely 3 Carriers at Midway? Pearl Harbor was a huge blow to the Pacific Fleet and to suggest this was done merely to rouse war fever is ridiculous. Heres a hint, a repelled attack on Pearl harbor would have been just as useful...

American aid was invaluable. Yet, over 70% of German casualties were on the Eastern front.

"Putin will suggest was useless, Russia would not have easily survived a potential Japanese attack from the east while fighting a death struggle in the west."

The logistics of a Japanese attack in Siberia would have resulted in utter failure for the Japanese. There is little population, cold weather, hard to transport supplies. Would have faced fierce partisan resistance much like the Germans faced in the West. Soviet tank production outnumbered the entire rest of the world, let alone the Axis powers. The military production in general simply dwarfed the Axis powers. The only thing Japan could have contributed was naval power, which is of no use. The Soviets defeated some of the best troops the Japanese had at Khalkin Gol. The Japanese were simply no match for the Soviets, even if they were bogged down with the Germans.

Sigh, most of the much ballyhooed Lend Lease aid arrived after the Germans were already beaten back. The aid given to Russia by the US/UK was 4% of their overall military spending during the war, and the aid amount was a fraction of what the US gave to the UK and vice versa. Nearly 60% of all Lend Lease aid arrived from July 1943 to December 1944, when Soviet offensives were well underway. Much of what was sent was dual-use, and used for civilian purposes, and it amounted to only 4% of overall Soviet production for the entire war.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yJcD7_Q_rQ8C&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=lend+lease+myth+exaggerated&source=bl&ots=keP4EtHBmz&sig=P4nUcl_cGR_dbHRVx1-clhPcZI4&hl=en&ei=wB6dTtftA8mosALl78XbCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=lend%20lease%20myth%20exaggerated&f=false

This whole thread was a fair sight more hilarious than any of last night's late night TV, all newspaper comic strips I've ever read, and almost beat out today's edition of xkcd.com.

Keep up the good work JPG!!


Oh wait, were you serious? Holy crap!!!