Thank a Vet today

[Ron]

Q:

So why did we have to fight them, spending millions of dollars and losing thousands of lives?

A:

Alliances and geopolitics are always a gamble. We have normally tried to be the good guys but have often teamed up with some bad actors. It was no secret that Germany was expansionist. Better to nip it in the bud before they rivaled or surpassed us in industrial power. Why let your enemies become strong and formidable when you can stop them ahead of time?

my answers don't count?

[garyk/nm]

Why won't you state your position? Until you do so, anything you say will be viewed as bullshit.
I repeat: take a pill and STFU !!!!!

[Guest]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke

[garyk/nm]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Amen and Hallelujeh!!!!!!!

[grampster]

Here's the answer to Rabbi's question.  Read the history books.  Talk to those who are left alive from that time.  Then draw your own conclusions.  It's a free country.

Iv'e done what I've suggested above.  I spent more time speaking with those who were alive and found themselves in the maelstrom than reading the  opinions of those bold and bright enought to get published.  But, I haven't neglected that part of it either.

The answer is there for him who has eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to understand.

[cosine]

Can I inject some light-hearted humor into this thread without being trampled? I first saw the title and wondered, "What the heck am I supposed to thank a veterinarian for?" Seriously. That's the first thing that popped into my head.

[The Rabbi]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Amen and Hallelujeh!!!!!!!

So your position is that we should spend whatever is necessary in money and lives to wipe out evil men?  Would that include those in N.Korea, Iran, Sudan, Venezuala?  And how would you define "evil"?  According to the Nazis, Jews are evil.  According to bin Laden, Americans are evil.

I have read plenty of history books and talked to plenty of people (on both sides) who were there then.  That doesnt answer the question.
And no, GoRon, your answer is incomplete and not logical so it doesnt count.

[Iain]

Despite his recent crankiness the Rabbi raises an interesting, and valid quesion. I'm just not sure that this thread was an appropriate one to have this discussion on, but with the 'he started it' defence invoked...

Where exactly do we stop, or even start? WWII is probably a poor example as Mike points out, but there are examples and potential examples. If we argue that 'evil dictators should be dealt with' then why is N. Korea as it is today? Good men have done nothing, and evil has prospered. Zimbabwe is not prospering at all, but the thug still rules it and no-one talks about more than sanctions.

There is a lack of will to deal with anything but the most imminent threats, and even then Chamberlain is not alone. That is only rational though, modern war means massive loss of life, just imagine the scale of an invasion of N.Korea. What seems clear to me though is that a fascist Europe would not have been a strong bulwark against Soviet Russia, a fascist Europe was aggressive and expansionist, and pretty technologically advanced. Little validity to 'what if' history (in my mind at least) but little leaps of imagination based on the Nazi developments of rocketry and jet engines lead me to decide that involvement in the European theatre was in the US' best interests.

The Holocaust has been raised in this thread. Whilst it stands apart from many other genocidal acts in our consciousness perhaps it only does so because we have managed to claim it as part of our history. By this I mean that we got involved, we did something about it we can feel shame and pride at the same moment. Shame for humanity and pride for our intervention. Yet we don't talk about Stalin, the Khmer Rouge or other 20th century genocides in quite the same way, and perhaps that has nothing to do with latent leftism, but more to do with only feeling shame for humanity. Perhaps even shame that we stood aside.

If we're going to produce some impossibly objective measure of how evil a regime is, Hitler would rank very highly and we'd all feel a little spark of pride. But a few of the others on the list we will have ignored, done business with, or even been allied with even if only for temporary gain.

So I suppose it is cake time. Do we wage war because it is in our self-interest, and then dress it up in righteous language? Or do we decide on our measure of evil and then only give passing thought to where we are going to find the money and more importantly the lives?

(This post was hard to write. It took me over an hour to actually write, and is the culmination of a lot of probably muddled thinking. It's not a complete position, it's not even my position, it's half-formed and uncomfortable)

[richyoung]

Ian - good post - can't wait to see hte fully formed version!

As to German "expansionism", lets look at the Allies:
Holland:   Indonesia, Suriname, the Antilles, (Aruba?)
Belgium:  the Congo, Rhuwanda, Berundi
France:  French Indo-China (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam), French Guiana, many islands, part of Turkey, part of the Congo, French Algiers, Chad, French concession in Shanghai, Syria, Lebanon, Togo, Cameroon, Madagascar, Central African republic, Gabon, Tunisia, Benin (as Dahomey), Burkina Faso (as Upper Volta), Cote D'lvoire, Guinea, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Morocco, Martinique.  France was THE SECOND LAEGEST EMPIRE in the world at the time.
Great Britain: Canada, Australia, India (including modern Pakistan), many islands, Singapore, Hong Kong, Falklands, South Africa, Much of the former Ottoman Empire, esp in North Africa, Celon, Malaya, Scottland, Ireland, Wales - the LARGEST empire - covering a quarter of hte world's land mass and ruling a quarter of hte earth's population.
Sovier Union/Russia: Half of Poland (helping set off WWII with their German partners), Finland, the Ukraine, and by war's end, the Kuriles, North Korea, North Vietnam, Eastern Europe.
The United States: Hawaii, Cuba, The Philipines, many islands.

In light of that, the agument that we HAD to go to war against Germany because it was "expansionist" is laughable.

[grampster]

Rabbi,
Your question is actually nonsense.  Just like the old saying, "Opinions are like a**h****, everyone has one."
 
One can posit your question to any number of people and get any number of replies.  the history of man is replete with "man's inhumanity to man." That is obviously the one constant that is evident.   It all depends on each person's point of view based on each person's perception of his reality with respect to who is actually being inhumane.  Never has the world ever been totally at peace.  Violence, inhumanity, expansionism, greed, warfare, etc. etc. have existed always.  Sometimes in the macro and sometimes in the micro.  Although if someone is sawing off your head with a rusty machete, definitions don't really matter, do they?
Neither does it matter why this is happening.  It just is.

I think the best answer to your question is:  *expletive deleted*it happens.  And it is usually the  concentration of power and a very strong, ruthless personality that tends to provide the *expletive deleted*it.  No man, nor any government, kingdom or any rule of Man has been without guilt in this matter.  It truly is an unanswerable question.

[The Rabbi]

So is the question "nonsense" or "unanswerable"?

[grampster]

If there is an unanswerable question then, imho, it is nonsense to ask it.  It's fun to think about such things.  Though circular reasoning tends to get frustrating after awhile.

[The Rabbi]

"Had Reagan not been elected, would the Soviet Union still have dissolved" seems unanswerable to me but hardly a nonsense question.

[grampster]

Well, I don't think it's an unanswerable question.  There are, of course, a number of variables in the fall of the Russian Empire (The Pope, the fax machine, Solidarity etc), but Reagan was a linchpin.  He ran the Star Wars bluff, expanded our military, updated Europe's defenses and offenses, reinstated optimism among the American populace; in other words projected a willingness to win the cold war.  Russia blinked and the empire fell.  No Ronald Reagan and American strength of will along with actual and perceived power and our wealth, then you have a repeat of the 50's in Eastern Europe at best or a quagmire of civil war at worst, but the Empire remains.

[White Horseradish]

Rabbi, I don't have an answer to your question. However, I do have a question of my own for you. Obviously, you wanted to have  a discussion rather indirectly related to my post. What, exactly, prevented you from opening your own thread for that rather than doing this here?

[The Rabbi]

I didnt want to impose on anyone.

[White Horseradish]

I didnt want to impose on anyone.

I'm tempted to say something snide...

However, I shall refrain. Perhaps I will do so in a thread that you start at some future date.