Was World War II worth fighting?

Well,

 

Hitler didn't declare war on the US until Pearl Harbor - can't complain generations later about what the US was able to get away with under neutrality >>> only people I see bitching like you - are the current dumbazz NAZI Skinheads - still worshipping Hitler and fighting Jews and the Trump .....

 

So, I am nazi skinhead that worships Hitler...that is about as an ugly and horrible thing to say about anyone that I can think of... Knock it off. Furthermore, I am not bitching, I am just pointing out a point in history! Which I thought was the purpose of this thread. It was another huge strategic mistake by the moustache man, otherwise FDR would have had to convinced Congress and the American people to declare war on Germany. This is often discussed by historians. WTH?

 

FDR commie/socialist or not supported Stalin and Churchill warned FDR about Stalin. To Churchills dismay FDR didn't listen

 

In the Weimar days, specifically the 1920s to about 1933 (the book burning in Nuremberg, 1933, actually started with burning pornography), Berlin was certainly the city of decadence. The Nazis toned it down because they wanted to be seen as moral and upright Aryans. In fact, I think Hitler order Gobbels to clean up Berlin. Nevertheless, the Nazis that did this behavior mostly did it underground after Hitler's rise, had to do it on the quiet.

Voluptuous Panic: The Erotic World of Weimar Berlin by Mel Gordon is probably the best known to document some of this but there are quite a few other good ones. I suppose given the economics and financial collapse during that period, a wheelbarrow full of D-marks for a loaf of bread, certainly played a huge role in all of this and we shouldn't be surprised.

 

IIRC FDR was basically a socialist and he gave us social security??? There are claims he brought many communist into our government... tail gunner Joe warned us IIRC as well

 

I have not watched the videos yet...

NOT justifying the German or Japanese regimes,
and once in a war, one fights until victory, or until a convenient offramp if victory becomes impossible,

but the point is whether WW2 was necessary IN THE FIRST PLACE.

In 1940, 93% of Americans did not want war with Germany, and the question was not asked again until after Pearl Harbor.
https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941

FDR had promised no war, and went to war shortly after being reelected.
Classic Democrat tactic, same as Wilson and LBJ.

"I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again:
Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” -FDR, October 1940
“Your president says this country is not going to war.” -FDR, November 1940
"We will not send our Army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside of the Americas, except in case of attack."
(so if the elites want war, then the incentive is to get the enemy to attack)

The highly provocative embargo of Japan, refusal to negotiate started only AFTER Roosevelt was re-elected,
so did the provocative and deceptive Lend Lease and convoying to Iceland

FDR was already determined to draw the US into the war,
in accordance with the interests of Britain/the transatlantic elite like in WW1,
so the incentive would have been to ESCALATE and PROVOKE the other side to shoot/attack first.
Standard passive-aggressive tactic used by "democracies" to keep their hands "clean" and fool their people to get into war.
Same tactic used by the US/Biden in Ukraine...

Evidence that FDR was trying to provoke an attack by Japan or Germany to give the US an excuse to get involved:

1) Lt. Commander McCollum memorandum (Naval Intelligence), 1940, declassified only in 1994,
Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and Recommendations for Action by the United States:
"Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.
If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better."
McCollum memorandum - Wikisource, the free online library

2) Harold Ickes letter (close confidant, cabinet secretary), June 1941:
"There might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it,
not only possible but easy, to get into this war in an effective way."
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/methbk/ickes.pdf

3) Rainbow 5, 1939, the Joint Chiefs' of Staff grand strategy of a long defence against Japan until Germany could be defeated:
"It was determined that the U.S. would not be the aggressor, and that Japan would strike first,
thus surrendering the initiative to them."
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA220965.pdf

4) Roosevelt and Churchill meeting at the Atlantic Conference in 1941,
Churchill's words only became public in the New York Times in 1972:
"[FDR] obviously was determined that they should come in.
If he were to put the issue of peace and war to Congress, they would debate it for months,” the Cabinet minutes added.
“The President had said he would wage war but not declare it and that he would become more and more provocative.
If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces…. Everything was to be done to force an incident.”
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/01/02/...evelt-britain-releases-her-data-on-talks.html

I can get to a LOT more specific evidence of deliberate US provocation,
including economic warfare and refusal to negotiate with Japan in peacetime,
as well as firing on German ships FIRST in the North Atlantic...

And a LOT more specific evidence of deliberate deception of the American people & Congress,
such lying to the American public about convoying in Lend-Lease and invading Iceland...
Heavy propaganda & conditioning/programming favouring the UK for years before the war started...
Closely collaborating with UK intelligence in peacetime to attack "isolationists" and spy on members of Congress...
The deep state has been transatlantic and financial since the early 20th century

Tojo came to power in Japan only AFTER the US embargoed Japan (an act of war) and refused to negotiate with Japan, leaving no other options. And there's always the question about what FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor...

The various massacres and destruction in Europe in WW2 started or greatly worsened only AFTER the US got involved.
And the UK worked with Poland to block negotiations with Germany, making war inevitable.
The UK also repeatedly rejected peace negotiations with Germany before the US got involved.

(I'm glad that the Japanese were defeated once war had already started, they were beasts.
I'm not sure if deliberate civilian firebombing & nukes were necessary except for unconditional surrender.
I'm not sure that the war and destruction and resulting massacres were necessary in the 1st place.
I'm not sure that I'm glad about the Germans being defeated,
it would depend on my country and people,
of course it was horrible what the Germans did and of course everyone wanted the war to end ASAP.
But the defeat of the Germans made the USSR stronger & led to the Cold War and near-extinction in the N hemisphere,
and the disastrous destruction of the British Empire, administratively not financially.
The transatlantic financial elites had decided that total war in Europe was more important.
High taxes, debt, entitlements & normalised military intervention also led to the collapse of the gold standard,
and intensifying debt and galloping consumer price inflation & asset inflation since then)

The point is that there is a myth complex & fairy tale about FDR, Churchill, WW2, "appeasement",
reinforced by many decades of heavy propaganda, censorship and Hollywood mythmaking, because this myth,
and additional similar propaganda (and provocative tactics) are central to the neocon-neolib global interventionist agenda.

 

"Tojo came to power in Japan only AFTER the US embargoed..."
Now, that is something I didn't know, just didn't catch it - yet - extremely important!

"... AFTER the US embargoed Japan (an act of war) and refused to negotiate with Japan, leaving no other options."
FDR is quoted as saying, "I might have started a war..." referring to the embargo. Let's not forget, Japan was in a war up to their necks in China since 1937...plus a very proud people. This was a nothing less than an ultimatum, get out of China or watch your fleets turn into useless hunks of metal and your industry come to a halt while they were still at war, all done in the diplomatic language of the embargo. They got other countries to go along with the embargo too. The Japanese chose a third option.

"And the UK worked with Poland to block negotiations with Germany, making war inevitable."
The French signed a treaty they "would launch an offensive against the Germans 'no later than fifteen days after mobilization'" but - never happened. However, this does explain why the Poles didn't try to negotiate with Germany. I'm not sure if the UK and France thought they could bluff Germany or what...now, that would make interesting research.

 

As to the Oil embargos on Japan, that alone was NOT an act of war, Japan had plenty of options at it's disposal to obtain oil as needed, what Japan wanted was a war with the United States, to settle the balance of power in the pacific in favor of Japan! They had seen the power the East India Trading Company had held for more than 200 Years, to Japan, that kind of power was exactly what they desired above all others!
The Hague conventions of War specifically call out initial acts and if they rise to "Acts of War' in and of themselves, and the embargo against Japan was NOT enough of an excuse to attack! Furthermore, during that time, BOTH the U.S. And Great Britain were in fact Neutral, so an outright attack on either would not endure them well to the rest of the world, especially in later trade with those other lessor nations, nor would it stand in the international courts, Japan full well knew this, and yet chose to attack, all the while, pretending they were interested in peace negotiations with the U.S. and Britain!

 

The fact is, it did happen. Bad shit happened on all sides. The victors get to write history. Historians dig into the minutia and tease out details for centuries. But to me .. does it matter if the world went to war? Does it change the direction of my life? Not really, because my grandparents and my wife's grand parent survived the war .. it' mattered to them.
All the war did was decide the trajectory of their lives but everything is in the past. And you cannot change it.
All history can do describe Yesterday.
Today is what you can act upon, to set your path to
The Tomorrow you hope to be.

So, bad shit happened. Millions of innocents died and they didn't get a tomorrow. Fate ended their story.
I'm not going to waste a lot of brain power lamenting the losses of generations past.
I can do damned little if my government or another government decides to blow up the world.

My problem is how do I ensure the future of my offspring to flourish once I pass. I have to learn and teach my children and others how to navigate in a realm of government overreach and deceit today and pray it's the right direction.

I basically don't worry about a nuclear war nor trying to survive it because what was the saying, The living will envy the dead?
Yeah, worry about today and go in the direction of the future you want and deal with the hiccups along the way.

 

@VisuTrac You are exactly right! However, I get a lot of pleasure of discussing 'what if's' and different scenarios. I do know it matters not, not a spit, however, for me, it is simply interesting. I suppose it also is a tool for learning for when something like this happens in the future even though we peons are not decision-makers. It gives us insight to what our decision-makers are or are not doing.

Plus, it does provide one other major benefit. During all of our education, much of the details of history are never taught or discussed and many of those details don't come to light until decades later and changes history completely. My favorite example, the sinking of Lusitania. While not the only reason for America's entrance to WW1 it sure played a big role. The manifest was finally released in 2014 (need to check that date!) and, sure enough, it was carrying war supplies, specifically artillery ammo and lots of it, bound for the UK and was the reason it went up like a rocket. Until that manifest was released, it was always conjecture but never known and I believe even denied that a neutral USA ship was carrying armaments into a war zone for the allies and, as such, was a legitimate target.

Anyway, you are spot-on, but it is one of the fun things of history and a lot of history, not all of it, simply isn't what is true, written and taught and it also changes. I used Napoleon's quote early and use it again, "History is a set of lies agreed upon". Also, "History is written by the victors."

"As to the Oil embargos on Japan, that alone was NOT an act of war"
No, you are most likely technically correct on this; however, I haven't looked it up to confirm it. However, I think the real point is that it left Japan without any options. I mean, they were at war, 1937 onwards, engaged very heavily. FDR's embargo included Britain and the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), the major producers. Remember, there simply weren't too many oil producers in that period. Stopping their oil flow especially during war, was crippling to Japan. According to one source, Japan had only 18 months in reserves. So, their option was pull out of China or ? Where I disagree with you is 'Japan wanted a war with the United States.' They wanted oil, not war with the US, but in order to get it and ensure its supply was unhampered then they had to take the US Pacific Fleet off the table. In better words, in order to attack the Dutch East Indies, they would have to fight the Pacific Fleet which was not a push over so...Pearl Harbor. And, yes, I agree, they absolutely wanted power, influence and empire throughout Asia like the East India Trading Co. and certainly didn't want the USA sticking its nose in their business which might have led to war in the future which would have been a very hard sell to the American people...unless we were attacked. Did FDR think he could force them to attack? Was this FDR's intention? Sounds insane but this is what historians have speculated for decades and some of those sources @Maria739 cited are very revealing, especially for me the McCollum memorandum. While this is simply a recommendation it sure as hell shows that even at the lower military levels it was being discussed openly. Why? Because it was ordered by high-level decision makers. I know, sounds nuts...

EDIT: After you stated, ''Hague conventions of War' specifically call out initial acts..." it made me wonder if the destruction of the Nord Stream 1 & 2 pipeline could/would be considered an act of war. I want to look into that when I have time. Why? I fear US involvement. Can you imagine what might happen if that ever came to light...

t It

 

A great read is "The Forgotten Man" by Shlaes that goes into this and many other failings of FDR during the Great Depression

Amazon.com

 

After you stated, ''Hague conventions of War' specifically call out initial acts..." it made me wonder if the destruction of the Nord Stream 1 & 2 pipeline could/would be considered an act of war. I want to look into that when I have time. Why? I fear US involvement. Can you imagine what might happen if that ever came to light...
t It [/QUOTE]
Give this a going over!
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 - Wikipedia
Specifically Article III "Opening of Hostilities"
You will need to dig through outside sources, but it's all there!

 

@johnbb and @3M-TA3 But, honestly, what else could FDR had done? Operation Unthinkable was found to be impossible, basically because the Soviets had more troops and armor than the West and had it right at hand. Start a war and Stalin might end up with all of Western Europe too.

I mean, it broke my world as a kid, when I discovered that while WW2 actually was started due to the invasion of Poland, we totally abandoned them at the war's end, even though they fought with us the entire time. Talk about getting screwed and the Great Game...still sickens me when I think of it.

However, what else could FDR have done? They needed Stalin in the beginning, and they couldn't get rid of him at the end. And, you know I'm not a fan of FDR...no. Yet, they had to have him in the beginning. If Stalin threw in the towel...it was over, just a matter of time. Which is why both, UK and USA, sent Lend-Lease and made it their highest priority. Threaten to use atomic bombs? Possibly. However, I would bet Stalin knew exactly how many bombs we had left. They damn well knew everything else about the program. I don't think we had any left after Nagasaki and I've no idea how long it took to produce them. After such a brutal war, I believe only the 'bomb' would have given Stalin pause...which is another good research question. Anyway, what do you think?

Note: One tidbit of information that has come out in the last 10, 20 years were the Soviets were indeed scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel at the end of the war...so maybe threaten with atomic bombardment a better deal could have been struck for Eastern Europe. The question then would be if Americans gave a damn about people in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, etc. enough to risk another war.

 

Considering America gave Hitler part of Czechoslovakia, without the Czechs being consulted; and then allowed Hitler to take the entire country, I'd say American's did not give a damn about any of them.

 

America? That is new to me. I knew France and England were in the negotiations but as far as I was aware America was not directly involved. I knew FDR did send messages to Hitler and a few others, for peaceful negotiations in 1938 but as far as I know we had no 'direct involvement.' I don't think we were even at Munich for the negotiations, we weren't invited, and why would we be. America was across the pond; we were isolationist and neutral. Mussolini was the so-called mediator so what role could we have played? France and England were the ones that did give away Sudetenland without even consulting the Czechs. Am I wrong in this? Please explain.

In hindsight, it was a shameful time in history; however, on the other hand, why should English and France boys die for Czechoslovakia? So, I understand the dilemma especially when they did not know Hitler's mind at that time...even though he laid out his plans very clearly in 'Mein Kampf'.

 

Been watching a WWII show and when Hitler was battling the Poles he had only a handful of divisions on the western front. France it was said could have easily defeated those divisions and marched into Germany. For whatever reason the French held back and did nothing. Hitler repositioned those divisions on the western front and the rest is history. Guess the French just being French --cowards

 

The book details FDR's admiration of Stalin which resulted in FDR to sent a team of academics to the Soviet Union to work with Stalin. Then he used Stalin's recommendations to meddle with the US economy that prolonged the Great Depression like forcing consumers to get the next chicken from a butcher instead of pointing out the one they wanted (went all the way to SCOTUS who he wanted pack in order to cement a dictatorship). He also created a commune in New Mexico with forced labor following Stalin's communism that resulted in a gun fight between the workers and the government. FDR was a great communicator, but after you read the well documented facts in this book you will realize he was perhaps the worst President ever.

I fully support FDR declaring war and even providing aid to the Soviets, at least before they became our competitor.

 

Stalin background was he as a criminal prior to gaining power. Continued his criminal ways and was paranoid of his generals. Speaks volumes in a negative way for FDRs admiration of Stalin. FDR, Wilson and Lincoln in my book were the worst presidents of the past. Add present day Obammy and Bidumb to my list

 

I agree!