Withdrawing troops from Germany?

[Guest]

Are you suggesting or implying that the USA would be better of than it is now, if it never entered WWII, and, as a consequence, the AXIS powers of German, Italy and Japan won the war and took over and ruled virtually the entire rest of the world with the exception of the USA?

Yes to the former, no to the latter. Chances are the Soviet Union would've eventually defeated Germany on its own. Not only that, but occupying so much real estate heavily taxes the occupying power--as any American knows--so the Axis powers would've eventually collapsed under their own weight, like the former Soviet Union did, even if they did win the war everywhere else. . . all without the U.S.A. losing a single soldier.

I'm still not quite convinced that the USA would be better off now than it would have been, had it never entered the war, but I agree that it is possible that the Soviet Union would have eventually defeated Germany even without our help, but at how much greater cost in Russian lives and resources and lost time without the huge amount in war materiel, resources and dollars we provided to the Russians? Still, I do acknowledge that the Nazi regime would probably, eventually have bit off far more than they could digest, even without having to fight us as well.

How long do you think we could have continued to maintain our Independence and democracy had that happened?

Indefinitely. Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, said it best: "I would never invade the United States. . . there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

I don't know about indefinitely, but it would certainly would have taken a considerable time before the Japanese could build up their forces and resources sufficiently to have a decent chance to physically beat us on our own soil by sheer military force alone, and, at best, I don't t think they could have accomplished it without the full cooperation of German forces. Germany certainly had the USA in its sights from the very beginning, as early as 1937 or 1938, but probably would have preferred to mop things up in Europe (if possible) before having to deal directly with us militarily. Our declaring war on them when we did, probably killed what little chance they might have had of carrying that out.

I can't help but agree, though, that if Yamamoto had the deciding say in whether to invade America's mainland, Japan never would have.

I realize too, of course, that even with that scenario of Japan and Germany combining their forces to invade the USA, it probably would not have been long before Japan and Germany turned on each other, and American populations would have been tragically caught in the middle of the ensuing conflict, with great loss of life. Would it have been less than what we actually suffered in reality? I don't know. How long would it take for us to recover from that scenario, had that occurred?

And what if the Germans succeeded in beating us to develop nuclear weapons because of the breathing space we allowed them by not going to war with them right away? Would we even have been working on them ourselves if not motivated by being at war with them? We know from evidence collected after the war that the Germans were researching the possibility of nuclear weapons.

And what is the likelihood that Japan would have refrained from eventually attacking the Pacific Fleet in San Diego, had it remained there instead of being ordered to Pearl Harbor?

100%. Their ships didn't have the range to make it from their nearest base and back.

I have to admit that is a powerful argument. It is difficult to imagine how they could have sustained a full scale naval invasion of the U.S mainland. They would have to have invaded and occupied Hawaii first, and it is difficult to see how they could have held on to it very long, even had they succeeded in taking it.

I do admit, though, that it is not entirely implausible that Roosevelt, recognizing the near inevitability that Japan, Germany, or both would eventually have turned their sights on conquering us, after defeating their more immediate neighbors in Europe and Asia, might have felt it prudent to provoke Japan into attacking us to get us into the war early enough for us to make a difference, and that he felt that moving the fleet to Pearl Harbor might have been an effective way to accomplish that.

Provoke a foreign nation into attacking his own country? That's high treason of the most despicable kind. If that could've been proven in his lifetime, he would've spent the rest of his life in jail, and rightfully so.

I can't disagree that that would have been a despicable thing to do, unless Roosevelt sincerely believed that the long term survival of our democracy absolutely depended on our active military involvement in helping to defeat the Axis Powers, and could think of no other way to motivate us to do so.

[_Themis]

Like the U.S. did in Vietnam?

Not even close to the same things. If you had paid attention you would have noticed I used Vietnam as one of two cases in which the US did not make the right decision and many of the US's allies did.

Please go back and read what I wrote, 'cause apparently you skipped it.

I didn't skip it. I just did not agree with the assessment, and it's not like we can really know how different scenarios would have played out. Which is why I avoided being conclusive.

I'm not talking about World War II. I'm talking about nowadays.

The US has not footed the bill even nowadays.

You just contradicted your first sentence, above.

No, I see that as a last resort.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

This conversation, at least to me, really strikes to the core of just how important diplomacy is. Once crap gets hot all bets are off. This is why it’s a head scratcher to me when the current admin reduces the State department’s budget by $14B. The sheer savings we enjoy between the relatively low cost of diplomacy versus a hot war is multi-generational.

- Doc

[_Gunnar]

I saw an interview with Carly Fiorina where she said she was voting for Biden, and if Democrats wanted to win over more Republicans, they had to stop calling Trump supporters morons. I disagree. Trump supporters are morons, and have not changed their minds after everything we've seen the asshole do to the country. How is that not moronic?

I don't think she is entirely wrong about that. You are less likely to persuade people to change their views if you start out by calling them morons merely for having them in the first place. That is the best way to trigger or reinforce the backfire effect tendency that exists to some extent even in some of the most intelligent of us. In fact it often happens that the more intelligent one is, the more ingenious is the rationalization invented to cling to a cherished but clearly mistaken point of view.