USA offshoot from "Blame it on Inflation?"

[Mr USA]

Duel - I will agree that the European settlers were wrong for killing the indiginous population of this continent and driving them off their land. But that is a different topic all together. Weren't we talking about about WW2? You say that I can't win without insulting people, but how about changing the subject because you don't understand what your talking about?

"Dropping Atomic weapons on civilian targets as opposed to military ones is bad, got it?"

Civilians would have died in a conventional land war or by Atomic bomb. Either way people would have died. There were also production facilities inside of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

"No "real" historian would sink to the level of insulting people who don't see things your way."

Maybe, but I never labelled myself as a "real" historian. I'm a regular joe who knows a good deal about military history with a loud mouth.

"Weren't you the one who claimed that if the whole world was against you, you were obviously evil? Well, if we all disagree with you...."

. . . I think some of you are arguing with me because you think you know what you're talking about and don't, but I think others are arguing because they don't like my tone. I don't know what else to do, you aren't listening, I guess I should move on and realize that you refuse to listen to the truth.

 

[Apollo]

*Comments edited to be a little nicer*

I know a little about the time, but not a lot. But I'm not arguing points. I'll just say that you're lucky you're arguing with some nice guys, because there are people that wouldn't have taken your arrogant comments so well. I hope you don't act like this away from the computer...

Good and evil is purely subjective. Who knows, maybe there is a God who did put us here to be the master race and the U.S. was the "evil" ones that will all to go to hell. Now, before you hit that "reply" button and call me a nazi, I don't believe one word of that. But you can't really say.

Anyway, the U.S. had no wonderful and good morals going in. They were there for national security reasons, which as you said is neither good nor bad. I wish you'd stop implying there were angels dancing around our heads.

 

[Baskil]

This thread, I think, has crossed the line. Close it now, or else this is going to get a lot uglier.

 

[Lotus Mox]

I thought I shut you down last week.

I wanted to stay away from this thread before I burn in flames.

"if for instance Germany would've won the war, everyone would believe that the Jews, USA, Russia, etc. were evil and the Good Aryan German saved the world from the influence of unworthy races."

You believe this? If you do, then it's a good thing you weren't around in the 30's-40's otherwise you would have been a good nazi soldier. Your words speak to this.

Of course I don't believe in this. From your statements one could argue you seem to think I'm a stereotypical German Nazi, be assured I'm not a Nazi, not even close.

"There's no such thing as an universally Good and Evil, these terms are always defined by current standards of thoughts."

Ok, I'll play your game - in terms of TODAY'S standard of thoughts Germany was bad. Starting a war that killed over 55 million people is bad. Incinerating six million Jews is bad. Understand? Should I spell it more clearly for you? German people knew all the bad that was being wrought by their country, they just turned a blind eye to it.

OK think a bit further why were Germans starting the war? Why could Fascism take the upper-hand in a democratic country?
Historians say that one of the main reasons was the Treaty of Versailles, after Germany's loss of WW1, which was giving Germany the complete guilt of WW1 and demolished a fair part of its economy, taking away parts of their land, and many other things, which was in retrospect wrong and if they wouldn't have made such a revenge-driven treaty with not very much respect to Germany, they probably could've prevented WW2.
Don't get me wrong, as usual, I'm not saying that the Allies caused WW2 or something like that, but Germany didn't want to take over the world out of the blue.

As Duel mentioned Germans were organising quite some resistance.

"in terms of TODAY'S standard of thoughts Germany was bad." True, I never would say anything else. But I also want to point out that this is a quite trivial statement. I also think that Germany was pretty Evil, but this statement is NOT objective, it's highly subjective. Killing 6 million Jews is a Good thing in the eyes of way too many people in this world. You simply can't say that this war was Good vs. Evil, you can say that it is your belief that this war was Good(Allies) vs. Evil(Axis). Not more not less. You can also argue with us about it. I have no problem with that. I only have a problem in the arrogant way you do it.

 

[Duel]

I agree with Baskil.IF this thread continues the way it's going, shut it down.

 

[Mr USA]

Lotus Mox - You've made very good points (esp. Treaty of Versailles) and I apologize for insinuating you were a Nazi.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

There's no need to "fend me off." I'm not attacking you, only challenging your assertion that the USA were the "good guys" in the war. Maybe we weren't the worst guys, but I just don't see how many of our efforts could be considered good in that case.

I do hope you don't mind me disagreeing, despite the fact that most historians -- apparently -- feel the way you've said. It's not a matter of fact though, but of opinion, whether any nation's effort was for good or ill. Simply that many authorities agree on something does not make it right.

I think that most of us here, though I speak mainly for myself, wouldn't mind a history lesson at all. I rather like learning new information or perspectives on a variety of subjects. but when one ridicules his fellow conversationists, it's a real turn-off, and creates an adversarial mood that's difficult to break free of.

That said, I concur with the suggestion that if the level of animosity does not decrease, we'll close the thread, since we prefer it all nice and happy-like around here.

 

[Spiderman]

"There are SO many other means of trying to uncover the truth 35-41 that I won't even list them all."

Why leave out the details? Please indulge me.

Here's a couple off the top of my head: the old fashioned spying and interviewing people. Obviously the US and world knew something was going on, especially after Kristalnacht. You don't have to always get a country's official blessing to find out stuff.

"Are there any books from Axis countries that depict the Axis as "evil" and the Allies as "good" (especially in the title)?"

Honestly, I'm not sure. But that is irrelevant, since I know for sure that literature from the rest of the world concurs that the Allies were on the side of "right" and the Axis were on the side of "wrong".

Actually, it's not irrelevant because it just backs up what others are saying that the "victors write the history". In other words, if the Axis are not acknowledging it, then it's not a "universally, objective 'fact'" that it was "good vs evil" (which is what this was originally about, not "right vs wrong".

"we should have declared war immediately and first."

This statement is ridiculous. Like I said in a previous post, if you believe this then you have no clue about logistics or the sociopolitical situation of the time.

"So by 1941, we were ready to go?"

No, we weren't. Remember that Operation Torch wasn't launched until late in 1942 and that operation went abysmally. Our soldiers were poorly trained and poorly equipped. If we would have engaged the Germans any sooner, the only thing it would have done was get more US boys killed with little or no gain.

Again, this is refuting your assertion that we used this time to "prepare for war" from 39-41. If we were truly gung-ho about fighting evil, and didn't "declar war right away" because we were not prepared, waiting two years and doing nothing merely shows we STILL weren't fighting for "good".

I would say it turned out that the US and Allies were the "better side", but no one knew or believed the extent of Hitler's Final Solution until around 1942. Until then, everyone just felt threatened by him (and Japan's expansionism) and were fighting to prevent that.

The US was not "good" in the purest or off-white of terms. We dropped the bomb on civilian populations and rounded up the Japanese on the West Coast and put them in "camps". We just happened to be "not so bad".

I also agree with closing the thread if it becomes too antagonistic, so hopefully it won't get to that point.

 

[Mr USA]

The reason I'm so frustrated with some of you is because of how flagrantly you disagree with historians' research and documentation. If I saw a show on rocket science and took a physics class in high school, that wouldn't make me have the same level of authority as scientists in the field. I sure wouldn't want to look foolish, making such confident statements that diverge from the mainstream, if I didn't have the depth of knowledge to back it up. If a person was very knowledgeable about WW2 and they had a very different opinion, there might be validity to their words. I would eagerly want to hear their rationale - being that is a well-formed opinion. But to refute research when you haven't done any yourself is plain idiocy.

This conversation is going nowhere if you won't agree on some of the most basic building blocks of this topic. Why don't we change the subject and talk about gravity, maybe we can disagree about its existence too?

 

[Spiderman]

So far I really haven't heard any of this "historical documentation" that you keep saying. I've heard your opinions, but that's not the same...

So why don't you recap and reiterate your documentation?

 

[Apollo]

But to refute research when you haven't done any yourself is plain idiocy.

You obviously are well-researched and know a lot about your history. But we're basically debating philosophy here.

Again, sorry, but you haven't provided any research. All you've given us is your opinion that the U.S. was good and Germany was evil, not any research or facts.

 

[Baskil]

Originally posted by Mr USA
Why don't we change the subject and talk about gravity, maybe we can disagree about its existence too?

Sure. I can take the complete existential stance, and you could back it up by saying that Newton thought that gravity was good. And then you can insult us some more.

Look pal, in your dozen or so messages on here, you've brought up references (even though they were just names) a grand total of once. Yet you blast us for refuting you? Calling someone a moron doesn't make you come across as a well educated person (how's that for using your techniques of discrediting the other party when the speaker is unable to back up his words?).

 

[Namielus]

Presented source:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/ww2.htm
Reason for being skeptical:
The site was NOT assembled by historians, and any site that features the phrase "That we may defend the land we love" on the opening pagen seems unlikely to be completely objective.
Plus, this site has won awards like
"The Americanism Award"
"The Patriotic Site Award"
etc.

The Desert Fox Military Award is from a web design company
The Distinguished Military Site Award is NOT from the military.
The Thin Red Line Award is by a website in honor of a man's grandfather
The Sentry award's site has, in big blue letters "Win My Award" printed on the front.
In short, I doubt the objectivity or serious validity of this site.

The best reference off the top of my head for you is "A People's History of the United States", though when I get home I will try and find some more, this is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Mr USA]

These sources support my perspective. Bear in mind these are only six sources from the mainstream that support me. I can easily dig out more (my bookshelf is a little out of reach now). Please, anybody disagreeing with my points, supply your sources. I've seen none. My feeling is that those of you who've contradicted me remember a few things you heard in a general history class in high school and saw "Saving Private Ryan" - and think you're now experts. Now for the documentation . . .

Dirty Little Secrets of World War II, James Dunnigan & Albert Nofi
"The Germans and Japanese used prisoners to test the effects of existing and experimental chemicals. Over 3000 Chinese, Koreans, Russians and Americans were killed during experiments by Detachment 731."

"The Japanese were in the habit of keeping their army surgeons in practice by allowing them to use prisoners to test new surgical procedures or simply to improve their skill. The "patients" usually didn't survive the procedures. If they did, they were killed anyway. The slicing and dicing was usually done without anesthesia."

Blood and Bushido, Bernard Edwards
Paraphrased quote:
"During World War II, the allied navies exercised traditional magnanimity toward a beaten enemy. The IJN saw things in a very different light. The Donerail was the first of a long line of atrocities.

"The atrocities committed against allied prisoners of war by the IJA in World War II were legion and have been well documented. A thin defense for such absolute barbarism..."

Delievered from Evil, Robert Leckie
"Himmler almost passed out when a hundred Jews were executed for his benefit near the Soviet Front. From this experience he ordered "the more humane means" of murder by poison gas in chambers disguised as shower rooms. He also created a special SS pseudo-science whereby every imaginable kind of painful experiment was made on the living flesh of "inferior human beings"; that is, criminals, cripples, the deformed, Gypsies, Jews and Slavs."

The Unseen War in Europe, John Walker
-Demonstrates the torture and murder wrought out by the Gestapo.

The Second World War, John Keegan
Bataan - "About 9300 Americans and 45,000 Filipinos arrived in prison camp after a notorious 'death march'. Some 25,000 had died of wounds, disease or mistreatment."

Americans at War, Stephen Ambrose
"...the Japanese acted as the occupiers of China in a manner brutal beyond description."

"V-E Day, 1945, was the occasion for the greatest outburst of joy in human history. Indeed, except for the Japanese and a few fanatic Nazis, everyone in the world was overjoyed. The end of the war was the single best thing that could happen to every person alive in 1945."

 

[Spiderman]

It's looking promising so far (except for Ambrose's last quote, that's a pretty broad generalization. I don't know if that counts as a "fact").

So what can you give that says the Allies were "good" (aside from the obvious that they "fought" the Axis")?

 

[Mr USA]

Are you doubting that I can find and quote documentation to show that the Allies were good or are you just trying to make me jump through hoops?

 

[Spiderman]

I'm saying from what I understand of your premise, the Axis were bad (or "evil", which one are we using here?) because of the above and the Allies (the US in particular) was good because we fought to stop the atrocities.

Whereas MY premise is that the US didn't know or care about the atrocities in '39 (which is a bit why we didn't join Europe and declare war on Germany) nor did we use the time between '39-41 to "prepare" to fight. We were neutral leaning towards the Allies and one of the main reasons we entered the war was because of the "audacity" of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

So I guess what I'm asking is information to support YOUR premise, although I understand if you don't since I can't really support my position. My only "fact" is that the US declared war on the Japanese in 1941. That's it.

 

[Apollo]

I would agree that these are horrible atrocities. I'd just like to also state again that when you get into the subject of "good vs. evil" you are in the realm of philosophy. It's purely a matter of opinion.

 

[Mr USA]

Apollo:
From Webster's Dictionary of the English Language:

Evil, adj. morally wrong or bad; harmful or injurious; an evil quality or conduct.

Good, adj. morally sound; well behaved; kind or friendly; honorable or worthy.

Moral, adj. of or concerned with principles of right or wrong conduct.

Those terms describe each side during the war - in their actions and intentions. Would you like to refute the dictionary now too?

Spiderman: Don’t only look at your belief of why they entered the war (which I still disagree with) – but include the overall policies set by the government and the way the war was carried out (rightful treatment of prisoners, code of conduct, adhering to Geneva conventions, etc).

 

[Baskil]

It's not a matter of refuting the dictionary, it's a matter of refuting perspective. Once you learn that, you might be able to add something meaningful to this discussion.