The "Wars of the Past" Thread

[Hobgoblin]

It really depends on definition. Not all wars have an obvious ending. Sometimes hostilities end without a formal declaration. Sometimes they have a formal peace treaty, but never really end.

The ongoing conflict on the Korean peninsula is a good example. Technically both sides are still at war. And the North Koreans attack the South Koreans from time to time.

I've also heard that in a way, WW2 is still going on. Russia and Japan never signed a peace treaty and still have arguments over who owns certain islands both sides claimed at the end of the war.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yep, and even that goes back to the Russo-Japanese War, which did have a peace treaty. Japan had a hand in the Russian Civil War, occupying Vladivostok, and then came the Soviet-Japanese Border Wars of the 30's, followed by the Soviets backing the communists in China fighting the Japanese. They even joined the fight a few times before officially declaring war on Japan in 1945.

Those two have been at it forever.

 

[The Overlord]

The United States never really has had much reason to declare war on anyone. Mexico was in the middle of a violent civil war and has no ability to fight the United States. Germany's navy was bottled up in the Atlantic by the British and only their U-boats had any remote freedom to move around. The British lied about the Lusitania being neutral when it was smuggling weapons to Europe. America had no reason to feel threatened by anyone in The Great War.

There was no justification for the United States to fight Germany and Italy during World War II. The only reason this happened was because Hitler declare war on the USA two days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. If the United States had minded its own business and just let Japan colonize western China by not sending volunteers to fight them in the air and cutting off their oil supply, there was not much incentive to attack the Allies. I think the only motivation Japan had for pushing the British, French, Dutch, and American colonial possessions out of the Pacific in December 1941 was its own paranoia they were going to be attacked soon. It might have also been because they saw how poorly Britain and France had fought against the Germans in Europe and took advantage of their weakness to annex their territories, thinking America would be demoralized and not fight back either because it was a peacetime nation and still suffering from the Great Depression.

Japan was no really military threat to the United States because it had no capability of attacking the American mainland and could fight on the sea or invade its territorial possessions. I say it would have made no difference if the Japanese had taken Guam, Midway, the Phillipines, and others because they were conquered during the immoral Spanish-American War and not maintained. Imagine if the Spanish War had never happened in 1898, Spain would have still been in charge of those territories in the Pacific and under Francisco Franco been a fascist ally of the Japanese Empire. If American had not annexed the unneeded Hawaiian Islands, the British most likely would have acquired them and it would have been of no concern to America if they had. US imperialism has indirectly help start more wars than most Americans realize.

I think you are blaming the US too much for these wars, a lot of the wars started before the US got involved, the US had nothing to do with the beginnings of WWI for example. The War would have happened and would have killed millions of people with or without US involvement and saying the fallout of WWI would have been better without US involvement is pure speculation.

Plus I don't see how the US not getting in WWII would be a good thing, it would have led to either a Nazi or Soviet dominated Europe and many more people would have killed. Plus the Nazis may have successfully completed the Holocaust if that happened. Pacifism is a nice ideology, not always practical.

 

[Quetzal]

I think you are blaming the US too much for these wars, a lot of the wars started before the US got involved, the US had nothing to do with the beginnings of WWI for example. The War would have happened and would have killed millions of people with or without US involvement and saying the fallout of WWI would have been better without US involvement is pure speculation.

Plus I don't see how the US not getting in WWII would be a good thing, it would have led to either a Nazi or Soviet dominated Europe and many more people would have killed. Plus Nazis may have successfully completed the Holocaust if that happened. Pacifism is a nice ideology, not always practical.

Yea... I admit there were plenty of good reasons to engage in WW 2. Philosophically and Realpolitik wise. WW1 Always has been more debateable for me. Wilson was able to truly influence the Western World's peoples... not so much their leaders or structures.

 

[The Overlord]

Yea... I admit there were plenty of good reasons to engage in WW 2. Philosophically and Realpolitik wise. WW1 Always has been more debateable for me. Wilson was able to truly influence the Western World's peoples... not so much their leaders or structures.

WWI was a mess, but was more to do with the monarchs running Europe at the time, rather then anything Wilson or the US did. US involvement didn't really change the mess the European leaders made of that war.

 

[8wid]

What would the United States have to fear from a Nazi dominated Europe or a Japanese dominated Asia? It was no more threatening than the past when Europeans tried to colonize the Americas and the US created the Monroe Doctrine to prevent their interest in the Western Hemisphere. They simply would have done the same thing.

The Germans would have not dominated Europe because the Soviet Union and it would have been rivals for power probably tensely locked in a Cold War for decades. Japan would have had to also deal with the Soviets in Siberia and a communist China that resisted their occupation of the west with heavy guerrilla fighting. Neither one of these powers could have held onto its empires for more than a few decades. Germany would have eventually gone bankrupt and given way to a more democratic government like in the 1920s and Japan would have relaxed itself as a commonwealth of nations too.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It was inevitable that the United States would be attacked by Japan. Japan needed the Dutch East Indies in order to get enough oil to continue their war in China, and in order to get them they had to go through the Philippines. That meant war with the United States.

As you said, the US was only in Europe because Hitler stupidly declared war against them. Discussing whether the US should have gotten involved in World War II is irrelevant, since they didn't make the choice. Japan & Germany did.

As for what Japan could do to the United States:

 

[Thundercrack85]

The Axis powers bit off more than they could chew.

Really, it's only because the Allies did nothing during the Phoney War that World War II lasted as long as it did. After the war ended the Germans said the same. If the French and British had acted, they would have been able to roll into Germany in 1939.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The Axis powers bit off more than they could chew.

Really, it's only because the Allies did nothing during the Phoney War that World War II lasted as long as it did. After the war ended the Germans said the same. If the French and British had acted, they would have been able to roll into Germany in 1939.

To be fair to the Allies, they weren't exactly in a position to invade Germany.

 

[Thundercrack85]

They were. Most of Germany's army was in Poland, with its back to the Soviets. The French completely outnumbered the Germans. They even had more tanks (more advanced ones too). 110 French and British divisions vs 20 something German divisions. The only problem was that the Netherlands was neutral, so they would have to violate Dutch territory. Which would get you a stern letter.

They may not have gotten to Berlin in 1939, but enough to radically change the course of the war.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

They were. Most of Germany's army was in Poland, with its back to the Soviets. The French completely outnumbered the Germans. They even had more tanks (more advanced ones too). 110 French and British divisions vs 20 something German divisions. The only problem was that the Netherlands was neutral, so they would have to violate Dutch territory. Which would get you a stern letter.

They may not have gotten to Berlin in 1939, but enough to radically change the course of the war.

I stand corrected.

 

[Venom75]

Honestly,I believe that Germany and the United States would've gone to war anyway,even without Adolf Hitler's declaration. In fact,the US probably would've declared war first. Churchill was begging Roosevelt to enter the war with Germany long before Pearl Harbor and FDR was just waiting for an excuse. I doubt Roosevelt would've told Churchill,"We're going to war now...but only against Japan. Sorry! Good luck against Germany!"
Besides,I firmly believe that the US had entered the war against Germany once they started the Lend-Lease program. The US called itself neutral. But a "neutral" nation doesn't send as many guns,aircraft and tanks as it can to aid another country. It should remain neutral. The United States was trying to pick a fight.
But,that's just my opinion on it.

 

[8wid]

The Japanese would have never to have invaded the Dutch East Indies if the United States had not begun an oil embargo against them to protest their presence in Manchuria. Hitler sites in his speech declaring war on the United States that the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine over South America, the Lend-Lease Act, funding of volunteers in China against the Japanese and others proved that the country was not neutral, but really participating in actions of war. Some of America's actions brought war upon itself it was not truly an isolationist nation by any means and Roosevelt and Churchill were trying to get each other into the European War.

Besides I don't care if the Japanese can attack, invade, or occupy the Phillipines, Guam, Midway, or Hawaii, they were simply Pacific territories of the United States that it didn't need to have or maintain. Japan would never have been able to attack the western coast of America except with submarines on oil rigs and shipping. They might have been able to invade Alaska, but that was the extent of it and that was thwarted quickly.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Japan wanted to rule Asia. Europe and America weren't going to let that happen. Were it not for them, the Japanese would have found themselves facing the Soviet Union sooner or later.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Japan wooped the Bolsheviks before WW II

 

[Hobgoblin]

The Japanese would have never to have invaded the Dutch East Indies if the United States had not begun an oil embargo against them to protest their presence in Manchuria. Hitler sites in his speech declaring war on the United States that the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine over South America, the Lend-Lease Act, funding of volunteers in China against the Japanese and others proved that the country was not neutral, but really participating in actions of war. Some of America's actions brought war upon itself it was not truly an isolationist nation by any means and Roosevelt and Churchill were trying to get each other into the European War.

Besides I don't care if the Japanese can attack, invade, or occupy the Phillipines, Guam, Midway, or Hawaii, they were simply Pacific territories of the United States that it didn't need to have or maintain. Japan would never have been able to attack the western coast of America except with submarines on oil rigs and shipping. They might have been able to invade Alaska, but that was the extent of it and that was thwarted quickly.

It is irrelevant whether or not you think the U.S. "needed" to maintain the Pacific territories. The fact is that we did and we had every right to defend them. And if you think the U.S. was cruel or exploited the peoples living there, imagine what the Japanese would have been like.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Japan wooped the Bolsheviks before WW II

Yes, but the was a long time ago. The Russians learned their lessons. Russia would have taken China and Korea sooner or later (with local communist help). Doubtful they would attack Japan itself.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The relationship between the US and the Philippines was actually fairly complicated. They weren't a conventional colony. Mostly because the Americans wanted to avoid another bloody war after the Philippine–American War (which gave rise to anti-imperialist sentiment in the states). So the Americans gave them limited self-government, with a promise of future independence.

The Japanese on the other hand were notoriously brutal. It is estimated that at least one out of every 20 Filipinos died at the hand of the Japanese during the occupation. There's a reason the Filipinos threw their full support behind the American war effort.

Fighting together really improved US-Filipino relations, and the US gave the Philippines independence in 1946, a year after liberation on July 4th.

 

[The Overlord]

What would the United States have to fear from a Nazi dominated Europe or a Japanese dominated Asia? It was no more threatening than the past when Europeans tried to colonize the Americas and the US created the Monroe Doctrine to prevent their interest in the Western Hemisphere. They simply would have done the same thing.

The Germans would have not dominated Europe because the Soviet Union and it would have been rivals for power probably tensely locked in a Cold War for decades. Japan would have had to also deal with the Soviets in Siberia and a communist China that resisted their occupation of the west with heavy guerrilla fighting. Neither one of these powers could have held onto its empires for more than a few decades. Germany would have eventually gone bankrupt and given way to a more democratic government like in the 1920s and Japan would have relaxed itself as a commonwealth of nations too.

And many more people would have died in the Holocaust, Hitler may have succeeded in killing all the Jews in Europe. Surely you can say that would be a bad thing.

There are moral reasons to fight a war beyond mere self interest. Hitler was intent on committing genocide and creating an empire. For the good of the human race, its better that he was stopped sooner rather then later.

Plus even if Hitler lost to the USSR, do you think it would be a good thing if Stalin controlled both East and West Europe?

Either Germany or the USSR were going to win that war, there would no cold war between them after the savagery of the Eastern Front, one power would have had to destroy the other, so either Hitler or Stalin would have controlled all of Europe, do you think that would be a good thing?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do question that the USSR could have conquered Western Europe. Taking Germany would be one hell of a battle. Let's not forget that when the captured Berlin in real life, that the Germans in the West were being obliterated by 10 million Americans and Canadians. So add a few million Germans and thousands of aircraft to Germany's defense, with no American-led invasion in the West and South.

The English wouldn't take that sitting down. And maybe France. Assuming they could find someone to fight for France.

 

[Hobgoblin]

It would be interesting to see how the RAF and Soviet armed forces would have compared to each other at the end of 1941. Both were pretty exhausted by that point. Had the U.S. not joined the war, who would have won, if the Russians had ended up on the English Channel?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I can't see the Soviets invading Britain. Don't forget, the British Navy was still in business. The Germans even in their prime couldn't pull off an invasion across the channel. Even if they could establish a beachhead, they wouldn't have been able to establish naval superiority, and their invading armies would be stranded.

Remember, this was before the Soviet Union became a naval power. The Cold War-era Soviet Navy wasn't established until 1946.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I didnt mean to say that the Soviets could invade Britain. No one has successfully done that since William the Conquerer. But I do think that Churchill would keep fighting Russia, had they conquered Western Europe to the Channel.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Hard to say. The Germans would have put up one hell of a fight. The Soviet Union would be overextended. They couldn't invade Germany, pacify it, occupy it, and invade and occupy Western Europe. They would have probably made terms with the West, and settled for Germany, and a few other states. A truce would give them time to regroup, rearm, etc.

 

[Schlosser85]

The Soviets would have been extraordinarily overextended to make it all the way from Russia to the English Channel. It would also have been a Herculean effort to invade, occupy, and maintain control over all of Europe.