If Roosevelt attacked Germany in 1938....

[193d]

Would he be like Bush?

 

[User1001]

no. PLEASE READ SOME HISTORY.

 

[Todd33]

No, if he attacked Sweden he would.

 

[193d]

Enlighten me User 1001 and Todd33.
What did the world know about Hitler in 1938 ?

 

[TuxDave]

These new user names makes baby Jesus cry.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: 193d
Enlighten me User 1001 and Todd33.
What did the world know about Hitler in 1938 ?

Google "Neville Chamberlain" "appeasement" "Czechoslovakia" and TIME magazine man of the year 1938.

 

[193d]

I would have started with a post count of 1000 if I had a say in it

 

[193d]

Not an answer to the question first posted yet.

1938 was before the annexation of the Danzig Corridor, Sudetenland and most of Czechoslovakia ( 1939 )
He had only annexed Austria in 1938.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 193d
Would he be like Bush?

No, television was not yet in every American household. Wars didnt become wildly unpopular until after they became live(or nearly live) telivised events, a la Vietnam through now.

 

[Todd33]

Ya, because wars should be popular.

 

[193d]

Talk about non answers from all you people.
The world in 1938 didn't know the extent of Hitler's evil, but alot of people now say we were wrong to invade Iraq. Is there something you all know that I don't regarding today's events. Saddam had decided not to invade any more countries and he for sure, and you *guarantee* this, destroyed the gases and didn't have any WMDs.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 193d
Talk about non answers from all you people.
The world in 1938 didn't know the extent of Hitler's evil, but alot of people now say we were wrong to invade Iraq. Is there something you all know that I don't regarding today's events. Saddam had decided not to invade any more countries and he for sure, and you *guarantee* this, destroyed the gases and didn't have any WMDs.

Hussein != Hitler
Iraq != Germany
2003 != 1938
Lies != Reality

:cookie;

 

[193d]

Can someone argue the point?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 193d
Can someone argue the point?

Can you? There is no comparison between the two. Your argument is a straw man.

 

[308nato]

We couldn't have rounded up a military capable of attacking my Grandma in 1938.

 

[193d]

"There is no comparison between the two"

Why? Because we have hindsight and Roosevelt would have been justified?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 193d
"There is no comparison between the two"

Why? Because we have hindsight and Roosevelt would have been justified?

Hussain hadn't the military potential to pull off a WWII. I can say that Charles Manson was a killer and shooting him preemptively would be justified. Since you have the potential to do the same shooting you would be justified too.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 193d
"There is no comparison between the two"

Why? Because we have hindsight?

Can you support your premise with a well-informed, well-reasoned argument or not? So far you're just trolling. Put up or ... move along.

 

[193d]

We didn't think the Japanese had the potential to attack Pearl Harbor.

World War I started with a single assasination.

 

[193d]

I posed a question, it is up to you all to answer. So far there has been nothing to argue.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 193d
We didn't think the Japanese had the potential to attack Pearl Harbor.

World War I started with a single assasination.

Didn't think so. Have another :cookie;


(Unless your premise is we should attack every country because they might have the "potential to attack" us, in which case you're not trolling, you're insane.)

 

[1EZduzit]

If someone had beat your brains out yesterday then would we have to anser your stupid questions today?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If someone had beat your brains out yesterday then would we have to anser your stupid questions today?

Hmmm. So there is some merit to his idea.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Are you saying Bush is like Roosevelt? Huh?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: 193d
We didn't think the Japanese had the potential to attack Pearl Harbor.

World War I started with a single assasination.

Japan only had the potential. They never could have done it without the help of the administration in Washington. They would have been caught with their pants down by the entire Pacific Fleet and that would have been it.

Your statement is completely baseless since it is a documented historical fact, that even the stiffa$$ History Channel admits, that a ton of people in the US administration knew what was coming and knew exactly when. They knew it all the way to the top. Forget the movies. They disassembled the radar stations and shipped them off the islands after they were told of the imminent attack.

Not sure what your point is with the assassination but it wasn't what started the war. It was an attempt to start the war that failed, although it sure as heck inflamed people on both sides.

What put them over the top was some claim about boats crossing boundaries and attacking or getting attacked. I didn't research this enough to give details at all. I don't even know which side had the boats but I do clearly remember that this put both sides over the edge and that was the end of that.

10 brownie points for anyone who can tell me why the boat incident is significant in another war.