You're ignoring the fact that we had outlawed offensive war. It wasn't legal for us to go to war until Japan hit us (Germany and Italy made the mistake of declaring war on us as per their MD/AP with Japan allowing us into Europe).
Manifest Destiny
- Thread starter clarkfford
- Start date
You're ignoring the fact that we had outlawed offensive war. It wasn't legal for us to go to war until Japan hit us (Germany and Italy made the mistake of declaring war on us as per their MD/AP with Japan allowing us into Europe).
Fascist Canuck, David, et al,
David has suggested that the "Neutrality Act of 1937" was a cause in the delayed entry. This was in fact an impediment.
I will admit that the US tends to boast a little too much about our participation in the War. But, one has to ask, could Europe and the UK have defeated Germany without US participation? The The Polish-British Common Defense Pact, was all but a total failure. Poland was not defended.
It is equally boastful for anyone to suggest that the US entered the war when "the Germans were BEATEN" already. The war was far from decided.
(COMMENT)
In the pre-1941 partipation, the US Lend Lease Act (http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm) suffered over 60 Merchant Marine Ships lost to German attack. But it gave the Russians the boast it needed in re-arming and modernization.
Yes, there is an argument to be made that the Russians (after re-arming and modernization) could have defeated the Germany Army. But we will never know for sure because the Allies opened a second front and Germany had to distributed it forces.
There is also the contribution made by the US daylight strategic "precision bombing" campaign (which was not so "precision") against the German War Industry. The US 8th, 9th and 12th Air Force dropped 1.4M tons of ordnance to the RAFs 1.2M tons (equal contributions).
Pre-War Note:
Yes, there are arguments to be made about pre-War participation. But the US made its contribution, and more; while fighting on two fronts. At the end of the day, the US contribution over the 4 years was equal to the combined allied effort.
Today, the US honors the men and women of WWII as the Greatest Generation. I am very proud to say that my father and 11 uncles were part of that distinguished group.
Most Respectfully,
R
David has suggested that the "Neutrality Act of 1937" was a cause in the delayed entry. This was in fact an impediment.
I will admit that the US tends to boast a little too much about our participation in the War. But, one has to ask, could Europe and the UK have defeated Germany without US participation? The The Polish-British Common Defense Pact, was all but a total failure. Poland was not defended.
It is equally boastful for anyone to suggest that the US entered the war when "the Germans were BEATEN" already. The war was far from decided.
(COMMENT)
In the pre-1941 partipation, the US Lend Lease Act (http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm) suffered over 60 Merchant Marine Ships lost to German attack. But it gave the Russians the boast it needed in re-arming and modernization.
Yes, there is an argument to be made that the Russians (after re-arming and modernization) could have defeated the Germany Army. But we will never know for sure because the Allies opened a second front and Germany had to distributed it forces.
There is also the contribution made by the US daylight strategic "precision bombing" campaign (which was not so "precision") against the German War Industry. The US 8th, 9th and 12th Air Force dropped 1.4M tons of ordnance to the RAFs 1.2M tons (equal contributions).
Pre-War Note:
http://www.historynet.com/lance-wade-world-war-ii-raf-ace-fighter-pilot.htm said:
Yes, there are arguments to be made about pre-War participation. But the US made its contribution, and more; while fighting on two fronts. At the end of the day, the US contribution over the 4 years was equal to the combined allied effort.
Today, the US honors the men and women of WWII as the Greatest Generation. I am very proud to say that my father and 11 uncles were part of that distinguished group.
Most Respectfully,
R
Of course. You ALLOWED Pearl Harbour to happen, in order to have an excuse to enter the war. Shit, my grandparents kept telling me about the British intelligence services constantly telling the Americans 'Japan will hit Pearl Harbour', whereupon they were largely ignored. So, the attack was no surprise. The British even told the Americans HOW the Japanese were going to do it. Interesting that the carriers were not there, no? The Americans knew the attack was coming. They were simply caught off guard as to the actual date, on a Sunday. That they did not expect. They also underestimated Japanese naval capabilities, something they sorely paid for. The Royal Navy did not underestimate them, which is why they kept warning the Americans. Why were the British so adamant? The Americans kept saying 'the Japanese cannot attack since our waters are too shallow'. Hello, Taranto, anyone? The British KNEW the Japanese were copying their own successful attack which destroyed a large chunk of the Italian Navy.
The Germans were beaten. Accept it. My own grandfather was there when the Luftwaffe was virtually destroyed by the RAF. There was no way Germany was going to take Britain. The British Navy was far too strong, the Channel was so heavily mined one could WALK across it. There was no way, no how that the Germans were going to take Britain. I should like to remind you that it is thanks to the Battle of Britain that the Germans decided to switch tactics due to their failure to destroy the RAF, and take on Russia. Basically, the British/Canadians FORCED the Germans to change their strategy.
You are welcome.
Britain only survived because Hitler was pro-British. He let the British escape after France fell and stopped short of destroying the ARF on the ground while trying to put Britain's pre-war, fascist king back on the throne. It was all about keeping the British intact (as much as that was possible while at war with them) so that they could become allies post-war. Hitler's grand strategy was to divide the world between Germany, Britain and (fascist) America with Italy and Japan keeping Africa and SE Asia in line. If the Japanese hadn't provoked the US into joining the war and the fascist coup not failed, the war would of gone the other way I think.
Actually I was thinking about the Kellogg-Brand Pact (which oddly only the US has ever honored, technically at least).
I would answer this bullshit post, but I cannot since the Admins are fucking with my posts.
David, et al,
Ah yes.
(COMMENT)
Yes, The Kellogg–Briand Pact was in effect, technically it still is. But I don't think that it is strong enough to override tacit approval by Congress (granted through funding authorizations). I don't think that any nation (today) even considers it an active agreement, having been superseded by the UN Charter.
But, it is something to consider. Back in the days of WWII, I don't think it was the real impediment. It is actually a renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. It doesn't prohibit armed conflict, but requires a due diligent effort to seek an alternative to conflict. The US has not declared war on any nation since WWII.
Most Respectfully,
R
Ah yes.
(COMMENT)
Yes, The Kellogg–Briand Pact was in effect, technically it still is. But I don't think that it is strong enough to override tacit approval by Congress (granted through funding authorizations). I don't think that any nation (today) even considers it an active agreement, having been superseded by the UN Charter.
But, it is something to consider. Back in the days of WWII, I don't think it was the real impediment. It is actually a renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. It doesn't prohibit armed conflict, but requires a due diligent effort to seek an alternative to conflict. The US has not declared war on any nation since WWII.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
David, et al,
Yes, this is true.
(COMMENT)
But there is a very crafty slight of hand.
The US has declared a war in 5 cases; beginning with the War of 1812 and ending in WWII.
(QUESTION)
How many times has the US engaged forces since WWII? It is not really an impediment to armed conflict. More recently, Secretary Clinton strongly advocated intervention in Libya.
In the first 145 days of NATO Ops in Libya, nearly 20,000 sorties we flown; 7800+ were engagements. The US flew somewhere between 25%-30% of all missions, and spent about $820M through in those first days. This cost includes amounts for daily military operations, munitions used in the operation, and humanitarian assistance," it said. In contrast, the NATO allies and spent about $222M worth of ammunition, repair parts, fuel, and technical assistance (only about quarter of the US contribution). To be fair, did allocate about $25M for "non-lethal" aid to the Libyan Rebels.
As I've said, The Kellogg–Briand Pact is still (technically) on the books; but it is not considered by either the Department of State or the Defense Department as being a show stopper. No one even considers it.
Oddly enough, it is not even considered a show stopper on "First Strike" matters and policy.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, this is true.
(COMMENT)
But there is a very crafty slight of hand.
The US has declared a war in 5 cases; beginning with the War of 1812 and ending in WWII.
(QUESTION)
How many times has the US engaged forces since WWII? It is not really an impediment to armed conflict. More recently, Secretary Clinton strongly advocated intervention in Libya.
In the first 145 days of NATO Ops in Libya, nearly 20,000 sorties we flown; 7800+ were engagements. The US flew somewhere between 25%-30% of all missions, and spent about $820M through in those first days. This cost includes amounts for daily military operations, munitions used in the operation, and humanitarian assistance," it said. In contrast, the NATO allies and spent about $222M worth of ammunition, repair parts, fuel, and technical assistance (only about quarter of the US contribution). To be fair, did allocate about $25M for "non-lethal" aid to the Libyan Rebels.
As I've said, The Kellogg–Briand Pact is still (technically) on the books; but it is not considered by either the Department of State or the Defense Department as being a show stopper. No one even considers it.
Oddly enough, it is not even considered a show stopper on "First Strike" matters and policy.
Most Respectfully,
R
Ah, yes, the USA did it all by they lonesome! They done won WWI, WWII, Iraq, Afghanistan, all by theyselves!
Shit, is there ANYTHING you Americans don't take credit for? Oh yes, must keep Vietnam, where you had your asses handed to you by a bunch of pyjama-wearing midget kiddies, quiet, yes?
Wee crushed the Viet Cong and routed the NVA. This was followed by NV suing for peace least we change our mandate from defense of SV to unification of Vietnam (which would of been a walk in the park as we'd crushed all organized resistance). After we left (and only after) did NV conquer the south. The Vietnam War was actually 2 wars though that detail as been lot o hisor for the most part. Not that it matters, 'Red' Vietnam ended up in our orbit anyway, the even went to war with Cambodia (where they overthrew the Communists) and China.
Wee crushed the Viet Cong and routed the NVA. This was followed by NV suing for peace least we change our mandate from defense of SV to unification of Vietnam (which would of been a walk in the park as we'd crushed all organized resistance). After we left (and only after) did NV conquer the south. The Vietnam War was actually 2 wars though that detail as been lot o hisor for the most part. Not that it matters, 'Red' Vietnam ended up in our orbit anyway, the even went to war with Cambodia (where they overthrew the Communists) and China.
Idiot. they ran you out of the country. The Americans were severely routed. Even the French weren't beaten so badly as you were. Their going to war with Cambodia and China had nothing to do with communism, or even you. I would suggest further reading, and NOT the propaganda bullshit which stinks up your country.
Fascist Canuck, et al,
Vietnam was a "political" loss; not a "military" loss.
(COMMENT)
As is usual, I don't expect you to take my word for it; so I offer this quote:
You have to look below the surface. I would caution you on how you define a "route." I served in Vietnam, all those many years ago. Yes, we got a bloody nose once in a while, but militarily we won 98+% of the engagements.
Most Respectfully,
R
Vietnam was a "political" loss; not a "military" loss.
(COMMENT)
As is usual, I don't expect you to take my word for it; so I offer this quote:
General Vo Nguyen Giap said:
You have to look below the surface. I would caution you on how you define a "route." I served in Vietnam, all those many years ago. Yes, we got a bloody nose once in a while, but militarily we won 98+% of the engagements.
Most Respectfully,
R
And you would know how? Were you there? I think not.
Remember that old thing about you are entitled to you opinion. But you are one that seems to want to rewrite history to make yourself feel better. But we don't believe half your BS anyway.
And you would know how? Were you there? I think not.
Remember that old thing about you are entitled to you opinion. But you are one that seems to want to rewrite history to make yourself feel better. But we don't believe half your BS anyway.
But you DO believe all propaganda as spouted by your liberals in the USA? Riiiggghhhttt. You had the Vietnamese 'on the ropes', after suffering massive casualties, with your goal that of stopping the spread of communism, yet you decided to just leave? Uh huh. You were beaten, driven out, had your balls kicked. the world knows it, and the only country that seems to deny it would be the USA. Why is that?
North Vietnam sued for peace after we kicked their asses in the failed Tet Offensive. We left because the war was over.
Similar threads
