Should we allow other countries to decide whether we go to war?

[Circe]

As far as I know, there hasn't been a single example found and we had access to Japan's records after the war.

Usual quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

[AZrailwhale]

First of all, Chamberlain bought valuable time, so appeasement was good strategy.
But second of all, WWI and the Treaty of Versailles was both totally criminal BY the Allies. The Allies had murdered Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, and had started the hostilities by invading southern Germany. Not to mention illegal confiscation of German property, ships, colonies, factories, borderlands, etc.
But third is the fact the war was likely no matter what Chamberlain did, because the US, British, and German corporations wanted munitions profits.

Well, you got everything wrong as usual. The closest you came to being correct was about appeasement, but it wasn't good strategy, it was just necessary because neither the UK nor France were prepared for war. They still weren't in 1939 when Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland. They needed at least until late 1941 when all the French purchases from American industry would have arrived and the UK got its industry on a wartime footing. What was inexcusable about Chamberlain's actions was his glee at publicizing the agreement instead if just quietly preparing for war.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

FDR didn't want to fight Japan, he considered Japan a distraction from the real threat which was Germany. There was more popular support for a war with Japan than with Germany. Japan had been committing well-publicized atrocities in China since 1936 and was widely viewed as an expansionist power that wanted to destroy the American sphere of influence in the Pacific. That's why FDR was a proponent of the "Germany First" strategy instead of fighting Japan which had actually attacked us first.

Yeah, but pearl harbor did open the door for him to get over to europe.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Usual quote: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Except when you have access to the records of the people doing the spying and they don't show any spying, it's pretty definitive, if there was any spying going on, the news would have broken in the last eighty years.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yeah, but pearl harbor did open the door for him to get over to europe.

Only because Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the USA.

 

[Circe]

Only because Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the USA.

True. The only other WWII mysteries that exercise me as much is why Hitler paused all fighting in front of Dunkirk for some days; and why he insisted on dividing his forces in 1941 rather than acquire Moscow. I suppose the best answer is "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

 

[gipper]

Well, let's see, Putin has gone around assassinating his political opponents living in other countries, He has invaded Ukraine, then Georgia, then Ukraine again. Threatened to invade the Baltic states AND Finland. That looks pretty Hitler-like to me. He's certainly a threat to international peace with his thuggery.

Yeah that looks like to you he’s trying to resurrect the USSR and duplicate Hitler’s conquests, except that’s foolish.

 

[jwoodie]

So which countries went into Congress and voted for the US to go to war?

Great Britain went into Parliament and voted for war with Germany.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Great Britain went into Parliament and voted for war with Germany.

Yeah, PARLIAMENT and voted for BRITAIN to go to war, not the US. In fact the US didn't go to war for more than TWO YEARS.

What a rubbish argument.

 

[jwoodie]

As far as I know, there hasn't been a single example found and we had access to Japan's records after the war.

Tasheo Yoshikawa

 

[jwoodie]

True. The only other WWII mysteries that exercise me as much is why Hitler paused all fighting in front of Dunkirk for some days; and why he insisted on dividing his forces in 1941 rather than acquire Moscow. I suppose the best answer is "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

I wonder if Hitler didn't want to repeat Napoleon's mistake. Also, he might have thought that Moscow was going to be taken anyway and wanted to get to the southern oil fields before the British did.

As for Dunkirk, he still had hopes for peace with Great Britain. The British Army wasn't a serious threat, anyway.

 

[Circe]

I wonder if Hitler didn't want to repeat Napoleon's mistake. Also, he might have thought that Moscow was going to be taken anyway and wanted to get to the southern oil fields before the British did.

I've wondered the same, about Moscow and Napoleon. Still, I suppose less interestingly, it was probably desire to secure the oil fields.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Except when you have access to the records of the people doing the spying and they don't show any spying, it's pretty definitive, if there was any spying going on, the news would have broken in the last eighty years.

They Call Them Documents Because They've Been Doctored

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

True. The only other WWII mysteries that exercise me as much is why Hitler paused all fighting in front of Dunkirk for some days; and why he insisted on dividing his forces in 1941 rather than acquire Moscow. I suppose the best answer is "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

Panzers Panting

Hitler didn't have an adequate supply line to put up with the stiff resistance that would have been at Dunkirk. In fact, the whole blitzkrieg was shaky: if France had put up more of a fight, the Wehrmacht would have fizzled. Imagine not.

As planned by Stalin's draw play, the Nazis never would have taken Moscow. The evil genius Stalin had kept his real army waiting behind the scenes to crush the spread out Nazi forces. Hitler probably realized that it was a waste of time, so he took his chances on Stalingrad and Leningrad.