You still did not answer my question, What do you think the outcome would have been if the United States had not been involved in WWII?

Also, I dont know your political ideology, maybe its conservative.....maybe its liberal....I dont know, but whenever I hear liberals speak of a person being patriotic, or showing patrioism, they try and make it sound like a bad thing. Being a patriot is not a bad thing, but being close minded to other cultures and societies is......lets not confuse the two. There is a big difference between having blind nationalism and following a sociopathic leader (**** party, Hitler) and being a patriot who loves their country, make no mistake I am a patriot.

 

In case it isn't obvious, I'm Liberal and proud of that. Contrary to your broad-brush generality, I love the US. I'm proud to be part of this country that has such promise to share its strengths. The worst strength though is it's military might. I'm not a pacifist either. The US could win more friends by being friendly instead of the bullying that has gone on for too long. Leave the partisanship go. You and I aren't enemies, we see the same thing but have different solutions. Truth be told, we're probably not that far apart on a lot of things.

YOur last post is very tempting. The two-year-old inside me almost got control of the keyboard and started to pick a fight by poking you in the eye. Fortunately, I put the tike to bed.

America, Love it or Change it-

*Gary McDonald

 

<You still did not answer my question, What do you think the outcome would have been if the United States had not been involved in WWII?>
Sorry, I didn't perceive that you wanted a reply to that specific question. Here it is.
At the start we must acknowledge that the U.S. had an effect on hostilities before it's active entry into the war effort. There was the selling of ordinance and materiel to England, including selling them 50 old four stacker destroyers that had been in mothballs since the first world war, at that time still called the 'Great War'. There was pretty much constant commerce of this type and we must presume that had the states not entered hostilities in Europe that this would have continued. Not that this was all one sided trade with the allies! IBM supplied pre-computer punch card enumerator technology and machinery to Germany which they used in tabulating and tracking the Jewish populations. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0213/black.php
As well, Ford and GM operated plants that produced military vehicles in Germany before the war and converted to strictly war production during the fighting. "The outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion by GM and Ford of their Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks.... On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored "mule" 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as "the backbone of the German Army transportation system."http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
In fact following VE day, Ford and GM applied for and received from the U.S. government an award for damages sustained to their axis plants as a result of the Allied bombing! Makes you proud to be a taxpayer, doesn't it?
Anyway the states would have been happy to remain a shopkeeper to the fighters, had it not been drawn actively into the fighting. (as we see, some of the 'shops' kept on profiting from both sides anyway)

The United States provided an equal measure of heavy bombers over Germany from England as did Great Britain itself. As many B17's and Liberators as there were lancasters and Wellingtons. later statisticians however have come to the conclusion that this great and expensive effort didn't contribute as much to the promotion of war so as to defeat the enemy, as they thought at the time. The great many civilian casualties amounted more to a wartime atrocity than did they contribute to crippling Germany's ability to wage war. It did not 'break the spirit' of the German people any more than the bombing of London broke the spirit of the British. Why did they think it would? Even the precision bombing raids such as the Schweinfurt ball bearing factory, a very costly raid in terms of lost aircraft and crews, had a negligable effect on German war production. The Germans simply used plain bearings. The Ruhr dams were breached, yes. Two of the three. The third one kept on producing electricity. The bombing and destruction of Hamburgh, Berlin, Dresden, all happened very late in the picture to an already defeated nation and just killed hoards of innocents. If there were only Britain's bombers and not the U.S. 8th over there at all it would have had virtually no real effect on the war's outcome.
It was Churchill that promoted the concept of attacking Europes 'soft underbelly' and the ruinously costly fighting in Italy. It was completely unnecessary as Italy had capitulated and the ****'s fought a wicked rearguard action all the way up the boot. Why attack there? Italy has alps at the European connection and some well placed bombing raids knocking out the rail and road links would have left an uncooperative Italy full of helpless Germans. Instead General Mark Clark engaged in a ruinously costly campaign in the effort to be remembered in history as a great general. He is remembered as the incompetant who bombed the Monte Cassino Benedictine abbey to rubble, prolonging the Liri valley engagement by several weeks.

So the U.S. vast war production would have in large measure been available and utilised to a goodly percentage even if it were not American soldiers using it. The convoys of war goods were in full swing on the Atlantic long before December 1941 after all. So if most of the tanks and guns and planes would have kept going that way anyway, we are left to consider military personnel and the intangibles.
If we count casualties, the U.S. lost 300,000, perhaps half of these in the European theatre. The losses of the 2nd World War in that place were on the order of 35,000,000. So the American losses were about .0042% of the total. Four tenths of one percent.
Each and every life was precious and important, of course, but as a proportion and in relative importance in the outcome of what was going on over there... I don't know how much more I can say. Would it all have doubtless come out differently but for the U.S.' participation?

As far as conjecturing what would have been the outcome had the U.S. not been involved in the Pacific, that's just not arguable. It was the States that were declared war upon, so there was no way you weren't going to be a part of it! Unless perhaps Rooseveldt had told Japan, " Hey, that wasn't very nice to bomb that harbour and those battleships, but we're going to let it go THIS TIME." Not likely. There wasn't any opting out of that one. We pitched in to help over there too. Think nothing of it, we'd do it for a pal anytime.

For that matter, it was Hitler who declared war on the United States on Dec. 11 1941, four days after Pearl Harbour, that's why you guys went to Europe anyway.

I'm not trying to belittle the accomplishments of the U.S. during the second world war. You have a military history to be proud of. I salute it. What you also seem to have though is an education system that promotes the idea that the United States just marched on in and slapped everybody into shape and won the war for the world and for peace and democracy and on and on. Good Lord
It is always the case that those who modify history for whatever motivation, be it misguided patriotism or avarice, do their readers a disservice. You have a grand military tradition and an honourable past. There is no need to fluff it up. I doubt those who gave the full measure of sacrifice would approve.

 

Glenlivet:

Very articulate writing as well as historically accurate and unbiased.

However, I must disagree with you on a previous post about Lincoln and his "greatness".

The Emancipation Proclimation was an unenforcable act that only freed slaves in the Southern States. A closer look at Lincoln will reveal that in his only trial concerning slavery as an Illinios lawyer he represented and won for the slave OWNER. In fact, the War for Southern Independence was never fought over slavery, but like most wars, over money. In 1860, the southern states were paying for 80-90% of the federal government's expenses through tarrifs on tobacco and cotton with dwindling influence in the legislature becuase of population density in the Northern states. Because of this, the Southern states decided to secceed (which they can according to the Constitution). However, the North could not afford to allow this as cheap goods would begin to enter Charleston and New Orleans and bankrupt the North.

As far as the "great railroad" goes, it was the beginnings of politics that we see in Iraq with Halliburton. Lincoln informed his rich political backers of the planned location of the railroad. The backers then bought (or stole) the land and sold it back to the federal government for a handsome profit without incurring any of the build costs. We see this in evidence in Iraq where we destroyed power grids and civilian infrastructure and then allow Halliburton to rebuild it at a handsome (and overcharged) profit through no-bid contracts. As we are well aware, the Iraqi military had their own generators and infrastructure and did not rely in the civilian one that we destroyed. It is no coincidence that Vice-President Cheney was former CEO of Halliburton and retired with a $13 million bonus package before he was Bush's running mate.

Like much of history, it is written by the victors and successes in time and is often skewed to that end. If you seek to further your information about Lincoln I suggest this link and author http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo68.html

 

Glenlivet- Your last post was interesting and informative, but my contention was never that other Allied countries did not suffer and sacirfice, or that they were not vital to the Allied victory. It is that the US involvment was required for that victory. England would have eventually fallen (not to say it would have been easy for the germans), that would mainly leave the Russians for Germany to deal with. The Russians had the numbers, but they did not have the resources to last a war that could have lasted much longer without US involvment. Also, as Im sure your aware of, germany had an aggresive program in jet/rocket propulsion that was just starting to yield good results for them in 1944/45. There was also the German counterfieting (sp?) of British $Pounds that if not stopped near the end of the war could have wrecked the wartime British economy.

Let me just say again, Im not trying to belittle other countries involvment in WWII, its just that the US was the MVP for the Allieds.

This has been a very interesting post, both for debating and learning.

 

Raptormattic, I just finished 8th grade "Arkansas History" and that is about as far as my knowledge goes in this subject but, are you sure all of the Sourthern states decided to secceed? If i'm not mistaking there were a couple or more that didn't, correct? I could be mistaking so don't hold me to it.

 

Anyone who uses the following as sources to back up their assertions lacks any sort of credibility and shows that they have a very tenuous grasp on reality outside their own twisted little vision of the world:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0213/black.php
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/am..._the_europ.htm
http://www.bush-zombiereagan.com/str...614095759.html

The last link being especially vile. It is stunningly obvious that the poster of the above links is a raving loon and the final link confirms it.


Also anytime a person uses the term "jingoism" your radar should go up. It is usually someone with a deep seated hostility or downright hatred for the US. Socialist/globalist types for the most part. Of course they want to make you ashamed to be proud of your country-THEY HATE IT. A hatred seated in envy or one seated in a polar opposite ideology but the hatred is there nonetheless. They see the US as the oppressor in the world. The bully. The focus of tyranny and evil doing the bidding of their corporate masters.

From a policy standpoint, if these types start squealing and pissing about something you are on the right track. Keep doing what you are doing and do more of it.

 

RaptorNext:

The states that were to form the Confederacy did not secceed all at once, but over about 6 months time as things progressed. Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware were slave states but did not secceed. The Emanciptation Proclimation did not free slaves in these states. The Maryland state legislature was preparing to vote on seccession with the vote expected to be in favor of leaving the Union. Lincoln had the majority of the state legislators arrested to prevent this from happening.

If you are interested in this subject I suggest 2 books:

<u>When in the Course of Human Events</u> by Charles Adams and <u>The Real Lincoln</u> by Thomas DiLorenzo

Your 8th grade history book contains a certain amount of political correctness or else it would not be purchased by the state. Unfortunately, this political correctness clouds or otherwise destroys a history that you should know and be proud of as a Southerner.

As I said in a previous post, history is written by the victors and is usually skewed or omitted to that end.

 

Raptormatic hit it dead on Raptornext. Having suffered through public education system not too terribly ago and having a fair amount of contact with their curricula now I would say definitely expand your reading beyond the textbook. Most modern textbooks are wildly biased and plain inaccurate in many cases. This even more important when or if you go to college.

Read everything you can get your hands on and examine it critically. Look into the authors background and motivations. If you do see the inaccuracies or don't agree with what is in your school text book in my experience it does absolutely no good to confront your teacher about it or expose classroom bias. Just smile and give the answers they want to hear. Just continue to educate yourself and search for the truth. There is a great deal of good information out there if you know where to look. In the 8th grade I would say a very good place to start is The Federalist Papers. I read it first back when I was in 5th grade and it definitely started the changes my thinking about what I was being taught by the state run indoctrination center. Research into the US revolution, its founding documents and the men that authored them is a great place to start. The American Republic Primary Sources is a good one. James Madison and the Future of Limited Government, The Anti-Federalist Papers, The writings of Madison, Jefferson, Paine and the other founders.

As dry and daunting as it might seem at first start reading the classics too. The ancient greek and roman literature, Shakespeare, Locke, Machiavelli, the list seems endless. Many of these books are usually in a dusty corner of the library but some have become available on line.

Above all, read read read read read read read and learn to think critically.

 

Well CaptainQuint, for a guy who advocates reading and aquiring knowledge from diverse sources in order to arrive at the best estimation of what really happened in history, you certainly are bitter about what such research can reveal!

What your vitriolic attack reveals to me though is that you have adopted the tack of trying to discredit the author rather than the words. In describing me as a U.S. hating loon with a twisted version of the world etc., you are not adding a thing to the discussion nor, as you obviously hold a differing view on the question at hand, do you advance that cause at all. You're just calling me names. Kind of puerile, don't you think?
One of the first things one learns about debating is to address the subject, not the speaker's person. You say, "I disagree with what you say because..." not "You are an idiot for saying that."
I think you are smarter than that and just let your emotions get away from you that time.

On the links I supplied, the ZombieReagan link is an example of black humour. I get a sardinic grin out of it based on its outrageous impropriety. That's why I shared it. I don't think any less of the man because of it. Black humour is not for everybody. If you don't like it, best not to look. I'll point out that the site is a .com and not a .ca, meaning it was put up by your fellow countrymen and not a Canadian.
The other sites are some that I found that illustrate the points I presented and are those first results I found with Metacrawler when I typed in a search with keywords from what I was saying, to illustrate that I'm not making things up. They aren't cherished favorites of mine, just the first results of those searches. It would have been silly and pompous of me to cut and paste a whole list of sites verifying my words now wouldn't it? Perhaps I ought to just supply the keywords from now on so that you can search with your own favorite search engine and you may thus choose which websites you find agreeable and worthy of 'credibility'.

In any case, regarding the debating process, here's how it works. The question originally asked by dirthead was whether the Second World War would have been won by the Allied side had the U.S. not been an active participant. My reply is above. When you find yourself in disagreement, you do some research (or trust that you have enough information to just comment from your knowledge) and you rebut my statements and/or raise logical arguement of your own. That's the democratic process. Or you can call me names. That's what kids do.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm