Just wondering why no one pointed out that they’re just interviewing people on the streets. Honestly, do well-educated people with jobs spend much time on the streets? On second thought, maybe in a place like New York that’s really crowded and walking is faster, but most other places don’t have highly educated people walking around on the streets a lot.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
What about the European theater in WWII? It was the Japanese who attacked us. Should we have stayed out of Europe and solely stopped the Japanese? If we did, you’d be bitching about America now in Russian.
Hitler had no intention of going West. After the Battle of Britain, it became clear that he wouldn’t have been able to defeat England, so he turned his attention east. Had we stayed out of that fight, it’s quite plausible that the Nazi’s and Soviets would have gone at it alone and wiped each other out.
That’s not just a conjecture of present-day, revisionist historians - prominent diplomats of the time voiced similar beliefs.
We should have stayed out of Europe and also shouldn’t have provoked Japan into war, which is exactly what FDR’s policies did. They attacked us because we explicitly rejected diplomatic overtures on their part and gave every impression that war was inevitable.
It’s not a “conspiracy theory”, by the way - it’s public policy. Provocation of other countries is how the United States has been entering wars for the past century. It is still happening right now.
After the middle of the 19th century, there was no power on earth that could physically invade and conquer the United States mainland. Basically, every war after that has been a scam conducted for the benefit of financial interests. The only thing that could possibly destroy this nation, as one of the founders presciently noted, would be the overextension of her resources.
We didn’t really need the Philippines, or the Orient, or Latin America, or the Middle East. It wasn’t in the overriding national interest. It wasn’t worth compromising the Republic for. We had a magnificent lot all to ourselves, and then we got greedy and imperialistic. The rest is history.
The Allied victory in WWII marked the final defeat of the old-world concept of national sovereignty. Hence, we have been edging closer to one-world-government ever since. It has been in the works for nearly a century and the final stages are now being put into place. The US is the last “great power” in history. There will be no others. This is what the top socialist policy makers have been repeatedly stating for 50-75 years.
Both world wars should be considered part of the same event.
Headhunter wrote:
Ever read ‘The Creature From Jekyll Island’ by a guy named Griffen? He documents pretty extensively how the Russian Revolution was initiated by elites in the USA and Britain. I know, its easy to dismiss it all as ‘conspiracy theory’.
Holy shit dude, you’ve actually read it? I keep telling everyone to read it. Well, that’s great. Awesome book, isn’t it?
[/quote]
Note to Europeans:
nominal prospect does not represent the United States
Many of us know that germany actually declared war on us, FIRST.
Many of us know that there was a Tripartite Pact.
No rational person ever considered not declaring war on germany/italy after Japan attacked us.
Finally, without a Western Front and Lend Lease, many of us realize that germany’s atomic research, coupled with V bomb technology, could have allowed hitler time to develop the atomic bomb. He would have had the ability to project the weaponery over long distances.
In summary, please don’t think nominal is representative of us.
You may see him on jay leno, however.
JeffR
[quote]varqanir wrote:
JeffR wrote:
nominal Prospect wrote:
There are incredible amounts of stupid people all over the world - this is true.
But stereotypes tend to be more accurate than not, and I strongly believe that Americans are, in fact, dumber than Europeans, on average.
Wrong.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
JeffR
An interesting non sequitur.
I assume the point you wish to make is Americans, who did not start the Communist Revolution, World Wars I & II, and the Holocaust must necessarily be more intelligent than Europeans, who did.
I would put in my cent and a half (that’s about all two yen is worth these days) to the effect that had America stayed out of the First World War, then the fighting would have petered out by itself. This would have destroyed the impetus for the Communist Revolution and Hitler’s rise to power.
But Woodrow Wilson had a mission to make the world safe for democracy, and so prolonged and intensified a war that the Europeans were, by that time, utterly sick of and ready to throw in the towel. In so doing, he started a chain of events that made the 20th century the bloodiest in human history.
[/quote]
This is one of those circular arguments that gets vomited up from time to time.
Right along with, “Lincoln didn’t really care about the slaves.”
I want you to read about the 1918 German offensive. Read about how close to breaking the Allies the Germans were.
Then tell me with a straight face that the victory in France would have slaked his thirst for conquest.
JeffR
Hey, I got a good one. Maybe the countries in Europe should not have STARTED WWI in the first place. Then we would not have entered and “caused” every evil significant event in the 20th Century that followed.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Hey, I got a good one. Maybe the countries in Europe should not have STARTED WWI in the first place. Then we would not have entered and “caused” every evil significant event in the 20th Century that followed.[/quote]
That’s just crazy talk, haha.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Hitler had no intention of going West. After the Battle of Britain, it became clear that he wouldn’t have been able to defeat England, so he turned his attention east. Had we stayed out of that fight, it’s quite plausible that the Nazi’s and Soviets would have gone at it alone and wiped each other out.
[/quote]
Got a book for ya. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer. It’s long, but a good read. Anyways, when the Nazis and Soviets signed the non-aggression pact in 1939, to partition Poland, there is a section in the book which states that both the Nazis and the Soviets had their eyes on taking large chunks of eastern Europe. Most of these nations were either conquered or became allies of Germany and Italy. After the war, these nations became the Warsaw Pact Nations.
The Soviets and Germans would not have “wiped each other out”. The Soviets had and would have had fresh reserves of Asian fighters to throw at the Germans. If the Germans moved south to take the oil rich sections, the Russians would have and did respond by moving their arms factories to the east.
Plus, (check the documentary about this on The History Channel if you can) the Soviets were much more able to fight in extreme cold than the Germans ever were. They dressed warmer basing their uniforms on the clothing of the people who lived in the colder climates and the oil in their guns was such that it did not freeze like the German’s so that their guns never jammed.
Chances are, the Soviets would have won and the outcome would have been the same. I can not see how it would have ended any differently.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Many of us know that germany actually declared war on us, FIRST.[/quote]
Why’d they ever do that? Let’s examine the historical reasons:
What was this “Victory Plan”? There were several of them, each representing a hypothetical conflict scenario involving the US and other nations, and each having been assigned it’s own color.
So that’s where Tom Clancy got the name. Interesting. What else was there? How about the Greer incident:
Raimondo continues:
Basically, we were conned into both wars by the Brits, who nevertheless enjoyed the full support of our elected officials in leading the nation to war. These people had chosen their sides from the very beginning. American “neutrality” never existed, at any point in time, in either conflict.
And finally - yes - there was the pact.
No kidding. That’s precisely why FDR deliberately used the provocation of war with Japan as a backdoor for entering the European theater.
That wasn’t known at the time, so it can’t be used to justify any actions taken before-the-fact.
As far as retrospective analysis goes, I think it will be sufficient for me to point out that millions of people alive today grew up under the constant threat of nuclear holocaust. And yet, somehow, we’re all still here today.
Nukes, so far, have only been used as deterrents. Except by us, of course.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The Soviets and Germans would not have “wiped each other out”. The Soviets had and would have had fresh reserves of Asian fighters to throw at the Germans. If the Germans moved south to take the oil rich sections, the Russians would have and did respond by moving their arms factories to the east.
Plus, (check the documentary about this on The History Channel if you can) the Soviets were much more able to fight in extreme cold than the Germans ever were. They dressed warmer basing their uniforms on the clothing of the people who lived in the colder climates and the oil in their guns was such that it did not freeze like the German’s so that their guns never jammed.
Chances are, the Soviets would have won and the outcome would have been the same. I can not see how it would have ended any differently.[/quote]
I don’t know about that. They went in undermanned and underequipped and still managed to get within a hair of Moscow.
By the way, they DID go south - at least partially. Contrary to the advice of the German High Command, Hitler diverted a portion of his army southward, into Ukraine.
At any rate, both powers would have been significantly weakened by a protracted struggle, thus paving the way for a power shift in Europe.
Wait, how did the US “provoke” a war with Japan? Because the US didn’t supply their war machine? That’s a provocation? Had we continued to supply resources such as oil, wouldn’t that have pissed off other’s (the Chinese and Allies, for example)?
Seems to me like the US was stuck to which side(s) of the conflict it was going to enrage. Somebody was going to end up seriously, seriously unhappy with us. I don’t know, maybe there’s another factor I’m missing that lead to us “provoking” Japan.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wait, how did the US “provoke” a war with Japan? Because the US didn’t supply their war machine? That’s a provocation? Had we continued to supply resources such as oil, wouldn’t that have pissed off other’s (the Chinese and Allies, for example)?
Seems to me like the US was stuck to which side(s) of the conflict it was going to enrage. Somebody was going to end up seriously, seriously unhappy with us. I don’t know, maybe there’s another factor I’m missing that lead to us “provoking” Japan.[/quote]
I would also like to hear it. We chose sides in an inevitable war. The isolationists never admit it.