It was 62 years ago today...

Rob Perkins wrote:

In short, the chain of events which freed Austria from Naziism
started that day, Martin.

Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England
and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US
participation was simply a later link in that chain.

Or you could keep going back to the rise of Nazism, or probably earlier
links.

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Rob Perkins wrote:

In short, the chain of events which freed Austria from Naziism
started that day, Martin.

Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England
and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US
participation was simply a later link in that chain.

In short, the chain of events which freed Austria from Naziism
started that day, Martin.

Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England
and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US
participation was simply a later link in that chain.

Technically true, but it is unlikely that France and England would be
democracies today, had Japan not jolted us into the war.

Thus, some links in the chain are more important than others...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:22:57 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England
and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US
participation was simply a later link in that chain.

Technically true, but it is unlikely that France and England would be
democracies today, had Japan not jolted us into the war.

Thus, some links in the chain are more important than others...

You mean: USA wouldn't have joined into the war without the Japanese
agression?
I doubt that the USA would have remained neutral as there have been some
attackes by german submarines in US ports and en-route on the Atlantic and
the US more and more supporting England.

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

You mean: USA wouldn't have joined into the war without the Japanese
agression? I doubt that the USA would have remained neutral as there have
been some
attackes by german submarines in US ports and en-route on the Atlantic and
the US more and more supporting England.

Well, in many ways Hitler was a fool (attacking the U.S.S.R before finishing
off Great Britain, for example, was just plain stupid), but I don't think he
would have drawn the U.S. into the war by choice.

The absolute fury of the American population at the Japanese attack's
audacity was critical in keeping public support for the war stoked. As you
may have noticed, public support for a war is critical in America... Would
the American public have supported going to war against Japan -- and,
particularly, Germany -- *without* being attacked first? From what my
parents have told me, the answer to that question was "no".

Thus, Pearl Harbor truly marked the first day in a long march toward
Austria's freedom...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:FB7Bb.469677$Tr4.1294247@attbi_s03...
As you
may have noticed, public support for a war is critical in America...

Are you distinguishing declarations of war from the many police actions
since WWII?

Michael

As you
may have noticed, public support for a war is critical in America...

Are you distinguishing declarations of war from the many police actions
since WWII?

Not for the sake of this discussion.. Public support for ANY kind of
prolonged military action is necessary in a democracy.

Had the U.S. not been attacked by Japan, it's unlikely that we would have
declared war on Germany alone. In this scenario, had Hitler then not
attacked Russia, the U.K. would surely have fallen -- and Martin would
probably not be hooked up to the internet today.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article FB7Bb.469677$Tr4.1294247@attbi_s03,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Would
the American public have supported going to war against Japan -- and,
particularly, Germany -- *without* being attacked first? From what my
parents have told me, the answer to that question was "no".

My understanding is that as Hitler took over Germany, built up his
"Wehrmacht" and his concentration camps, went after the Juden, and
generally became increasingly more threatening throughout the 1930s,
public opinion in U.S. became increasing opposed to the U.S. being drawn
into the conflict in Europe.

"Keep our boys out of foreign wars" was one of the major slogans, and I
believe there were increasingly active demonstrations against our
becoming involved (I was around then, but a little young to remember
details, and we hadn't yet had the '60s to teach demonstrators all the
modern techniques for non-violent violent protests).

I thought back to the above situation frequently a year or so ago, every
time I read about how our government, and those of many other nations,
should not get involved in Iraq because of the public demonstrations in
those countries against becoming involved with Saddam.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Thus, Pearl Harbor truly marked the first day in a long march toward
Austria's freedom...

There was no question that the US participation was critical to the end
of the war, and December 7 was the start of major American
participation. But I look at it more as a turning point in the overall
struggle against the Nazis. The force of US industry combined with
fresh troops was certainly necessary to swing the course of the war,
which had been very one-sided in favor of Germany up to that point.

However, to say that it was the start or the first day diminishes the
role of those people who had been struggling, and dying in large numbers
in the battle against the Nazis for the previous two years. They had
been engaged in fighting on their home soil, and it was a struggle for
survival. The British had already rebuffed the Luftwaffe in the Battle
of Britain, and maintained superiority over the seas with the sinking of
the Bismarck.

The eastern front was opened up only six months prior to the attack on
Pearl Harbor with the invasion of Russia, and you could equally say that
the war would not have ended as it had without Russian participation.
Their subsequent losses were staggering in comparison to the other
allies, and they contributed huge amounts of armor and soldiers. Some
of the largest battles of the war took place on the eastern front,
involving thousands of tanks and millions of soldiers in single battle
lines. Had these resources not been tied up on the eastern front, it
would have been nowhere near as easy to march against Berlin from the
west.

While the Russians were immediately forced into fight when they were
invaded, the US took some time to mobilize, and it wasn't until almost
another year had elapsed before Allied forces moved against the
Afrikacorps in Morocco and Algeria with US participation. In the
meantime, the Russians endured the siege of Stalingrad, and the
accompanying losses.

There are many events that could be classified as the start of the
resistance against Hitler, and my contention is that the first step was
in the declaration of war against Germany by England and France, since
that signaled the end of the policy of appeasement.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:18:21 GMT, Martin Hotze
wrote:

You mean: USA wouldn't have joined into the war without the Japanese
agression?

Correct. The isolationist factions were strong enough to keep us clear
of the main confrontation even though, as you point out, there were
some submarine attacks. Pearl Harbor made our swing voters willing to
be drafted.

We probably would have defended our own borders, nothing more. Think
of the immediate response to the U.S.S. Cole; it took the deaths of
civilian noncombatants to push us to where we are today.

Rob