A Moral Question about WW2

[warspite1]

Treble post??

[warspite1]

Er...

[warspite1]

Okay......

Mmmmm... seem to be struggling with the new forum...

[Capt. Harlock]

Re: Warspite1's comment that "I find it strange that to some, the US get no blame for not getting involved in Europe or Asia because of public opinion, but the UK and France get no such defence."

I do not offer the follow as hard and fast facts, but only speculation about a possible explanation for American isolation. In earlier days, many nations operated under the unwritten rule that there were "spheres of influence" where certain countries were supposed to take care of matters, and other countries were supposed to mind their own affairs. (Vladimir Putin seems to still harbor this opinion.) The Monroe doctrine is the classic example, where European nations were not supposed to involve themselves in Latin America, but the U.S. could send in the Marines when, in Washington's opinion, a country to the south got too unstable. Could the understanding have been that Britain and France were supposed to take care of Western Europe without American meddling, in return for the U.S. running matters as it saw fit in the Western Hemisphere?

[warspite1]

Re: Warspite1's comment that "I find it strange that to some, the US get no blame for not getting involved in Europe or Asia because of public opinion, but the UK and France get no such defence."

I do not offer the follow as hard and fast facts, but only speculation about a possible explanation for American isolation. In earlier days, many nations operated under the unwritten rule that there were "spheres of influence" where certain countries were supposed to take care of matters, and other countries were supposed to mind their own affairs. (Vladimir Putin seems to still harbor this opinion.) The Monroe doctrine is the classic example, where European nations were not supposed to involve themselves in Latin America, but the U.S. could send in the Marines when, in Washington's opinion, a country to the south got too unstable. Could the understanding have been that Britain and France were supposed to take care of Western Europe without American meddling, in return for the U.S. running matters as it saw fit in the Western Hemisphere?

warspite1

I think the point here is perfectly illustrated with Japan and China. The Pacific was the US 'sphere of influence' and what was happening there did get the US involved. Like Britain and France in Europe, the US did not initially seek to go to war to resolve the issue. Instead they tried economic sanctions. The argument is - and indeed you've made it previously Capt. Harlock - that the best thing the US did was wait to be attacked by Japan. The reason you state this is because that action by Tokyo immediately got US public opinion behind the war.

And there is some merit in that view. However, you don't seek to extend the same latitude to the UK and France, and have instead previously stated that they should have gone into a genral war with Germany over the Sudetenland - despite public opinion not supporting such a move, despite (at least two) of the Dominions of the Empire not supporting any war etc. etc. There is nothing guaranteed in war and once the shooting starts no one knows where it ends. There is absolutely no guarantee that war in 1938 would not have ended in as much carnage as going to war in 1939. So the UK and France would be plunging Europe into war again, a war they were unprepared for militarily, economically, politically and diplomatically - and without the support of their own populace.

A democracy going to war without public opinion is very rarely a good move. Why is doing so okay for the UK and France, but not the US?

[Orm]

Thank you for a interesting thread.

Could we please keep it from getting personal. And keeping it on WWII. I would like to see the discussion continuing without any need for moderation.

Not that I have any say in the matter.

Thank you.

[VPaulus]

Please be civil and avoid personal attacks.
Can't we just agree in disagree any longer?

[Orm]

Should Poland have ceded the Danzig corridor to Hitler? Would that have averted WW2 and therefore saved countless human beings from enormous suffering? What would the world look like today had Hitler remained in power in Germany? Was WW2 worth it?

Personally, I'd like to think that stopping Hitler was the right thing to do. I'd like to think that good triumphed over evil. Because if that is not the case, then perhaps untold human suffering occurred for no good reason. However, if human suffering could have been minimized by letting Hitler get his way (and assuming Hitler would have stopped at the Danzig corridor), then what are we to make of what happened?

If Poland would have ceded the Danzig corridor to Germany, and AH, then there wouldn't have been a conflict in August 1939. Peace would reign. And so would AH, only now he would have been even stronger. And his hunger for more would not have been satiated. Only now he would be even more convinced that he was right, and his opponents were all weak. So the peace would last a few months. Probably until Spring 1940, and then he would make new demands. And Germany would then be in a stronger position. The question is if the opponents would be in a stronger position as well. I sort of doubt it.

The surest way for evil to triumph, is for the good to do nothing to stop it.

[Rosseau]

Yes, with everything going on in Europe right now, we must have peace, especially among equally respected members of this forum, whom I both greatly admire.

As someone once wrote, "If I do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."

Back to WW2 now...

[rico21]

Very just. Let's take advantage of being able to remake the world quietly sitting in front of our PC.

[Fred98]

The Pact of Steel between Hitler and Stalin was signed in May of 1939. It included the agreement to divide Poland.

So, the Danzig corridor issue, in August of 1939, made no difference.

.

[sPzAbt653]

Since I've already pointed out one worthless Forum Member, I guess I might as well point out another one that is always wrong. Much the same, I guess most have this one on Ignore also.

The Pact of Steel between Hitler and Stalin was signed in May of 1939.

The Pact of Steel (German: Stahlpakt, Italian: Patto d'Acciaio), known formally as the Pact of Friendship and Alliance between Germany and Italy, was a military and political alliance between Italy and Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Steel

The correct history is :
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that enabled those two powers to partition Poland between them. The pact was signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E ... ntrop_Pact

More importantly, this had nothing to do with France and England Declaring War on Germany.

[warspite1]

Since I've already pointed out one worthless Forum Member.....

warspite1

So once again you choose to insult me rather than try and find those non-existent agreements.

But let's see if Matrix are true to their word. You've had a warning about keeping it civil. You've ignored it and instead doubled down by personally insulting a second forumite.

[Edmon]

Can you confirm which agreements you refer to please?

On 31 March 1939, in response to Nazi Germany's defiance of the Munich Agreement and its occupation of Czechoslovakia,[6] in Parliament, the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to assure Polish independence:

You don't even know the most basic of facts. Yet you have been blabbering your garbage on this forum for years. I guess most people have you blocked. I need not block you, because I don't read most of your endless paragraphs of a fools banter.

This post is unacceptable.

Since I've already pointed out one worthless Forum Member,

Then you follow it up with this after everyone was asked to keep things civil.

Consider this an official warning. The next time I see anything like this, you will be getting a month off these forums.

[Aurelian]

Should Poland have ceded the Danzig corridor to Hitler? Would that have averted WW2 and therefore saved countless human beings from enormous suffering? What would the world look like today had Hitler remained in power in Germany? Was WW2 worth it?

Personally, I'd like to think that stopping Hitler was the right thing to do. I'd like to think that good triumphed over evil. Because if that is not the case, then perhaps untold human suffering occurred for no good reason. However, if human suffering could have been minimized by letting Hitler get his way (and assuming Hitler would have stopped at the Danzig corridor), then what are we to make of what happened?

I doubt Hitler would of stopped with Danzig. If nothing else, it would of emboldened him even further, if that was even possible. I think war was inevitable, just a question of where the red line was going to be drawn.

[sPzAbt653]

This post is unacceptable. Then you follow it up with this after everyone was asked to keep things civil.

I disagree with misinformation and basically spam, it's your job to monitor it. I pointed it out, and its been going on for a long time. I'm being very nice about reporting content on this forum that is offensive. I can block this type of content, and I will.

Thanks for the warning, instead of banning me like YouTube or Twitter do.

[rico21]

Thanks Youtube and Twitter to do the right thing!