Bush/Cheney have disgraced their office; they should resign



darkboong said:
It appears to me that many Americans have a slim to zero grasp of the geo-political basics of the world at that time. Even more worrying many of those historically challenged Americans don't appear to have any incentive or willingness to actually learn anything beyond the jingoistic kindergarten blag regarding the US's involvement in WWII.

FWIW, thanks for selling us the Aircraft. Thanks for helping putting Germany back on it's feet, thanks for the people who fought to bring ******'s lunacy to an end. You can stuff the "you would be talking German if it wasn't for us" crapola, and you can start paying some respect and recognition to the *millions* of Europeans who sacrificed their lives for the cause.

With respect, American casualties didn't even make up 1% of the total dead in Europe, nor did US forces account for the majority of ******'s losses (if anyone has that claim the Russians do). There is no doubt in my mind that the US did make a decisive contribution to the European theatre, but it appears to me that over the long haul ******'s Reich was on the ropes as soon as the Russians got their armor together.

BTW : I have seen (first hand) the German high command maps of the Eastern Front for '42,'43,'44 and '45. The scrawled notes and movement orders indicated that they felt the writing was on the wall by mid 43 (it was spooky seeing the signatures of the Wehrmacht's top brass on those maps). Holding all that turf and fighting the Russians was just too much for them (as they told ****** repeatedly according to Albert Speer's "Inside the Third Reich")...

If I had to choose between the Russian contribution and the American one, I would probably have to pick the Russian, but I prefer to have both. ;)


Excellent synopsis.

It's evident, going on the posts of CR, DMc and Wolfix, that only a partial and inaccurate account of USA's involvement in WWII, is taught to Americans.
They're obviously taught that the USA was responsible for liberating Europe.
This is partially correct.

The Soviet and British forces played an equal, if not more crucial part in the liberation of Europe, than the USA did.
As you correctly point out, the German generals realised that by mid-1943,
the Soviets were winning the battle on the Eastern front.
Granted the US had made inroads (with Montgomery) in to North Africa but as the Eastern front required more and more German resources, it was the Soviet
response which caused the first major stumbling of the Nazi forces.

Granted that without the US involvement the allied effort to defeat Germany
would have taken longer - but I have no doubt that Russia and Britain eventually would have beaten the German war machine.

The other part of WWII history which is not taught in the US school system is
how the USA Inc profitted from victory over Germany.
The US education system details how the Marshall Plan "helped to save and regenerate Europe post-1945".
The Marshall Plan is portrayed as almost a charitable donation on the part of the USA to Europe.
It wasn't.

The Marshall Plan was created to benefit Europe, but also to benefit a sizable plethora of US interests such as Coca-Cola, IBM (the same compnay who sold technology to the Nazi's), Ford, GM and many others.
None of this is taught in the US education system.

Reminds me of the inlaw from New York who tried to tell me how the USA won the war in Vietnam, some years back.
Transpired that she was taught this in school.
Frightening stuff.
 
limerickman said:
I only condemn the USA's non-involvement when US citizens claim that they came to the rescue of Europe.
This internal propogandist situation is not new by any means. It is only relatively recent that German schoolchildren have been taught the truth about the second world and some of the horrors perpetrated by the Germans on humanity, and not in the name of war per se.
The American people have been brainwashed in a similar manner regarding their 'success' in WW2. DB points out that only 1% were American casualties, and the American film industry had them cracking the Enigma code and a lot of other fabrications to boot.
Therefore it is no wonder that our American friends must have looked on in amazement at our discussions of Zionism in the SOI, and didn't contribute to it in any way simply because they have been brainwashed by an alternative view. The subject was out of their depth completely so they desisted, instead of being blown out of the water.
It is not their fault that falsifications are manipulated to justify $14billion of tax raised revenue to be spent on an illegal act and action. Someone should tell them the truth.
 
This is why, assuming a reasonable capacity for independent and critical thinking, we Murkin's should (re)educate ourselves after we've graduated high school.

The system is set up to prepare kids for a life of chasing The Almighty Buck so that they can spend them though voracious consumerism, ("Capitalism Is Good!") if not then war, ("Patriotism!" YAY!) to keep "America's shining light of freedom shining"...while behind the curtain of The Great Oz, the corporations churn out yet more stupid plastic widgets, and rake in the profits and power.
 
limerickman said:
I'm not pushing for an argument with you.
The use of the term Merkin was not used in order to insult you.

You took exception to it.
All I can say once again is there was no insult intended.
So let's leave it at that.
I, too, will refrain from any nationality-orientated epithets. You are correct in that I have strayed from the norms of decorum on another occassion. At the time I thought it was cute but in hindsight realize I may have ruffled some feathers. At the time I was miffed by what was being posted for a variety of reasons.
On another note,my country IS held in low regard by a goodly portion of the worlds inhabitants due to our current office-holder's cavalier use of executive authority bordering on illegality. The worlds compassion after 9/11 has turned to disdain/animosity and for good reason. My only saving grace is that I did not elect the current office-holder. Others did. The legality/illegality of thier actions remains to be determined.
 
limerickman said:
Excellent synopsis.

It's evident, going on the posts of CR, DMc and Wolfix, that only a partial and inaccurate account of USA's involvement in WWII, is taught to Americans.
They're obviously taught that the USA was responsible for liberating Europe.
This is partially correct.

The Soviet and British forces played an equal, if not more crucial part in the liberation of Europe, than the USA did.
As you correctly point out, the German generals realised that by mid-1943,
the Soviets were winning the battle on the Eastern front.
Granted the US had made inroads (with Montgomery) in to North Africa but as the Eastern front required more and more German resources, it was the Soviet
response which caused the first major stumbling of the Nazi forces.

Granted that without the US involvement the allied effort to defeat Germany
would have taken longer - but I have no doubt that Russia and Britain eventually would have beaten the German war machine.

The other part of WWII history which is not taught in the US school system is
how the USA Inc profitted from victory over Germany.
The US education system details how the Marshall Plan "helped to save and regenerate Europe post-1945".
The Marshall Plan is portrayed as almost a charitable donation on the part of the USA to Europe.
It wasn't.

The Marshall Plan was created to benefit Europe, but also to benefit a sizable plethora of US interests such as Coca-Cola, IBM (the same compnay who sold technology to the Nazi's), Ford, GM and many others.
None of this is taught in the US education system.

Reminds me of the inlaw from New York who tried to tell me how the USA won the war in Vietnam, some years back.
Transpired that she was taught this in school.
Frightening stuff.
I fully understand the US history in WW2.. I studied at the university under a Russian professor that was in Stalingrad during the war..Or part of it..... And I do understand the things Americans are taught in school......

My postings have not been clear about one thing , poor writing on my behalf. ....... When I refer to Europe speaking German, I mean in the future, not the past. When Germany is studied looking at the "why" they became "war starters" , some of the same things are happening now. The main problem is that the German youth are so far removed from the war , that they have no realization of the true destruction of war. They feel immune. Just wait until the German economy is tilted, and that is a direction that I understand it is headed. Europe is starting to show some stress of immigration. The riots in France and the trouble in Holland.{I only know of the trouble in Holland from this forum}

I am not sure if there is anywhere on this forum where I personally have attacked anyone personally , except for that nutcase in the basement ..Wurm. But to be attacked for being American , that is wrong.. In the past 4 years I dealt with international students. I have tried and not stereotyped them. But this I know, that the German students have no love for the Russian students. And not to put you Lim into this catogory, but the Irish were the biggest racists in town.... Every time they came into the pub, there was trouble... But they also were fun after they settled down... And the same could be said for the Aussies. but we saw so few of them. But I know Ireland is not a land of racists.

One problem in America is the media as it exsists today. Both Fox and Air America distort the real America. And the BBC.... They distort the truth more then they get it right when it comes to the US.
I have stayed out of the Jewish discussions.... I have known many fine Jewish people and have no problem with them.... The situation that has occurred and is still happening down that way is something I have no interest in. So I stay out of those discussions.
But the Brits do have America to thank for WW2. The Germans may have eventually ben dismantled, but it would not have happened until after they devastated England.
 
FredC said:
Therefore it is no wonder that our American friends must have looked on in amazement at our discussions of Zionism in the SOI, and didn't contribute to it in any way simply because they have been brainwashed by an alternative view. The subject was out of their depth completely so they desisted, instead of being blown out of the water.
It is not their fault that falsifications are manipulated to justify $14billion of tax raised revenue to be spent on an illegal act and action. Someone should tell them the truth.
It is much like our Cuba situation. No one wants to be the one to be remembered for pulling the plug on Cuba or Israel. It may come down to a simple matter of vote-garnering. $14 billion (u.s.)/year is a sizeable "gift", especially when the results are not readily apparent. Add to this the fact that a great majority of Americans will never even visit Israel due to the lack of ethnic ties or the lack of funds.
 
Hey Brainless Sheep (wolfux): I'd be careful about tossing around epithets if I were you, until such time as you've extracted your cranium from your rectum and have bought a clue.

I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
 
wolfix said:
...But the Brits do have America to thank for WW2. The Germans may have eventually ben dismantled, but it would not have happened until after they devastated England.
Wolfix - The Brits and Europeans do have people to thank for helping out in the defeat of the Axis Powers (including the Americans, and us Sheepshaggers from the South). The US played a rôle, but no more than many other Nations did and, as with many of us, it was not for entirely altruistic reasons.
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country
for some interesting statistics. We (New Zealand) were, like the USA removed from initial direct threat to our homeland. We joined the fight at the time when Britain engaged in hostilities - 11:15am, 3rd September, 1939 (We, and the Aussies, couldn't wait to help after the poor planning of British Officers had managed to wipe out a large quota of our farming stock at Anzac Cove in the Battle of Gallipoli during WW1 - "Lest we forget"). In WW2, we lost 7.6 military per 1,000 of the Nation's population (nearly as high as Britain's 7.7 combined military & civilian deaths per 1,000 population). The US lost 3.2 people per 1,000 population. All of this pales against the loss of those Countries who felt the true brunt of the destruction, with Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, East (Portuguese) Timor and the Soviet Union each losing over 10% of their respective populations. Interesting to note that, of the Allied military deaths during WW2, China, with 4 million, contributed 25%, 2nd only to the Soviet Union's 65%, with 10.6 million. The Soviet Union combined military and civillian deaths make up 37% of all deaths for the whole World in WW2.
I think everyone would acknowledge the help of the US Forces and the sacrifices they made, but the popular image that is presented of winning WW2 single-handed is incorrect. The Soviet Front is where the Axis Forces collapsed beyond salvation and it was due largely to the tenacity of those they were fighting and the conditions experienced. The Axis, on the back foot already, was engaged on too many fronts to be able to withstand the enslaught. The images presented by Hollywood (which many in society now seem to view as being documentaries rather than movies) are sadly lacking in their presentation of surrounding and preceeding events.
 
wolfix said:
When I refer to Europe speaking German, I mean in the future, not the past. When Germany is studied looking at the "why" they became "war starters" , some of the same things are happening now. The main problem is that the German youth are so far removed from the war , that they have no realization of the true destruction of war. They feel immune. Just wait until the German economy is tilted, and that is a direction that I understand it is headed. Europe is starting to show some stress of immigration. The riots in France and the trouble in Holland.{I only know of the trouble in Holland from this forum}

Part of the idea behind the EEC/EC/EU was to ensure that by bringing European nation closer together, that this would prevent the causes that created WWI and WWII.
That was the objective behind the Treaty of Rome in 1957 (the basis upon which the EU was founded).

wolfix said:
I am not sure if there is anywhere on this forum where I personally have attacked anyone personally , except for that nutcase in the basement ..Wurm. But to be attacked for being American , that is wrong.. In the past 4 years I dealt with international students. I have tried and not stereotyped them. But this I know, that the German students have no love for the Russian students. And not to put you Lim into this catogory, but the Irish were the biggest racists in town.... Every time they came into the pub, there was trouble... But they also were fun after they settled down... And the same could be said for the Aussies. but we saw so few of them. But I know Ireland is not a land of racists.

There is no love lost between Germans and Russians, Germans and Poles for that matter also.
WWII and all that went on is fresh in the minds of a lot of people still.

As regards Ireland - I agree, racism plays it's part in our history.
One could say that Northern ireland is down to racism on both sides.
I was shocked to learn of how large numbers of Irish people emigrated to South Africa because they liked the notion of the Apartheid system and openly supported it.

wolfix said:
One problem in America is the media as it exsists today. Both Fox and Air America distort the real America. And the BBC.... They distort the truth more then they get it right when it comes to the US.
I have stayed out of the Jewish discussions.... I have known many fine Jewish people and have no problem with them.... The situation that has occurred and is still happening down that way is something I have no interest in. So I stay out of those discussions.
But the Brits do have America to thank for WW2. The Germans may have eventually ben dismantled, but it would not have happened until after they devastated England.

The American effort in the war is appreciated.
I don't think anyone here disputed the fact that the USA played it's part in the downfall of Nazism.
What people dispute is the notion that it was solely the USA which "saved"
Europe.
 
EoinC said:
Wolfix - The Brits and Europeans do have people to thank for helping out in the defeat of the Axis Powers (including the Americans, and us Sheepshaggers from the South). The US played a rôle, but no more than many other Nations did and, as with many of us, it was not for entirely altruistic reasons.
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country
for some interesting statistics. We (New Zealand) were, like the USA removed from initial direct threat to our homeland. We joined the fight at the time when Britain engaged in hostilities - 11:15am, 3rd September, 1939 (We, and the Aussies, couldn't wait to help after the poor planning of British Officers had managed to wipe out a large quota of our farming stock at Anzac Cove in the Battle of Gallipoli during WW1 - "Lest we forget"). In WW2, we lost 7.6 military per 1,000 of the Nation's population (nearly as high as Britain's 7.7 combined military & civilian deaths per 1,000 population). The US lost 3.2 people per 1,000 population. All of this pales against the loss of those Countries who felt the true brunt of the destruction, with Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, East (Portuguese) Timor and the Soviet Union each losing over 10% of their respective populations. Interesting to note that, of the Allied military deaths during WW2, China, with 4 million, contributed 25%, 2nd only to the Soviet Union's 65%, with 10.6 million. The Soviet Union combined military and civillian deaths make up 37% of all deaths for the whole World in WW2.
I think everyone would acknowledge the help of the US Forces and the sacrifices they made, but the popular image that is presented of winning WW2 single-handed is incorrect. The Soviet Front is where the Axis Forces collapsed beyond salvation and it was due largely to the tenacity of those they were fighting and the conditions experienced. The Axis, on the back foot already, was engaged on too many fronts to be able to withstand the enslaught. The images presented by Hollywood (which many in society now seem to view as being documentaries rather than movies) are sadly lacking in their presentation of surrounding and preceeding events.


For the record, the reason why I didn't refer to the Australian and New Zealand effort in WWII was because the ANZACS forces were primarily against the Japanese forces in Asia.
Obviously the ANZAC contribution was very essential to the war effort.

Thanks for those stats Eoin, it certainly quantifies the sacrifice made by the Soviets and others.
 
wolfix said:
But the Brits do have America to thank for WW2. The Germans may have eventually ben dismantled, but it would not have happened until after they devastated England.

You mean the British Empire, England was a tiny weeny part of it.

That was simply never going to happen, the Germans failed to win control of the Air and the Sea in 1941 long *before* the Americans made any impact in Europe (USAF 8th being the single biggest factor). The Battle of Britain really did turn the tide of the war as far as the Britain was concerned. The Luftwaffe lost practically *all* their offensive capability, nearly all their defensive capability and their nearly all of their best Aircrews. They had nothing left to hit Britain with, and what little they had was spent trying to eliminate the Russians.

Economically Britain was ruined anyway. The Boer War is often cited as the first manifestation of the decline of the British Empire (1899-1902, Concentration Camps were widely used by the British during the Boer War :(). Shortly afterwards the First World War and that war bankrupted Britain and decimated the military. So by the outbreak of World War II the Empire's decline was already in full swing, if anything WWII was the coup-de-grace.
 
darkboong said:
This particular Red Herring was brought to our noses by an American claiming that the USA somehow saved Europe out of pure altruism. Meanwhile you've brought up another Red Herring in the form of Nanking which occurred thousands miles away (across mostly hostile) turf. Futhermore it happened while some of Europe was getting Blitzkreiged and the rest was preparing to bear the brunt of the most powerful army in the world at the time.
Is it a red herring when you have no defense for european inaction as millions were slaughtered by the Japanese? Lets see Nanking happened in 1937. Europe didn't get to see the Blitzkrieg till Sept 1939. Maybe its because Nanking was thousands of miles away and those people beared little resemblance to your fellow europeans.

darkboong said:
It appears to me that many Americans have a slim to zero grasp of the geo-political basics of the world at that time. Even more worrying many of those historically challenged Americans don't appear to have any incentive or willingness to actually learn anything beyond the jingoistic kindergarten blag regarding the US's involvement in WWII.
Is there anymore to know than American soldiers died in europe in a war started by europeans which could have been prevented by europeans?
Maybe that Treaty of Versailles wasn't such a great idea!

darkboong said:
With respect, American casualties didn't even make up 1% of the total dead in Europe, nor did US forces account for the majority of ******'s losses (if anyone has that claim the Russians do). There is no doubt in my mind that the US did make a decisive contribution to the European theatre, but it appears to me that over the long haul ******'s Reich was on the ropes as soon as the Russians got their armor together.
BTW : I have seen (first hand) the German high command maps of the Eastern Front for '42,'43,'44 and '45. The scrawled notes and movement orders indicated that they felt the writing was on the wall by mid 43 (it was spooky seeing the signatures of the Wehrmacht's top brass on those maps). Holding all that turf and fighting the Russians was just too much for them (as they told ****** repeatedly according to Albert Speer's "Inside the Third Reich")...
If I had to choose between the Russian contribution and the American one, I would probably have to pick the Russian, but I prefer to have both. ;)
The Germans knew it was lost after Stalingrad. ****** made many disastrous decisions there. The Russians did lose more men. But that was more to their own military leaders incompetence. The Russians also got what they deserved. Remember the Russians. They made a non-agression pact with ****** and partitioned Poland with the Germans. They then invaded Finland in 1940. The Russians made a pact with the devil and then paid a terrible price for it.

Seems our european friends forget there was another theater of war. While the Russians were fighting the Germans, the US was fighting both the Germans and the Japanese.
 
limerickman said:
Reminds me of the inlaw from New York who tried to tell me how the USA won the war in Vietnam, some years back.
Transpired that she was taught this in school.
Frightening stuff.
Reminds me of an irishman who neglects to tell everyone that his own country remained neutral. When it was time to stand up and be counted with the nations on the good side, the irish government remained seated. The irish government's hatred of the English was greater than their hatred of Nazi atrocities. In fact the irish leader signed the condolence book at the German embassy after hearing of ******'s death.
Why do you chastise the US for not entering the war until 1941, when your own country never entered the war?
 
Colorado Ryder said:
seems our european friends forget there was another theater of war. While the Russians were fighting the Germans, the US was fighting both the Germans and the Japanese.

In the aftermath of Pearl Harbour, the USA declared war with Japan and with it's
(Japan's) partner Germany.
It had no other choice.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
Reminds me of an irishman who neglects to tell everyone that his own country remained neutral. When it was time to stand up and be counted with the nations on the good side, the irish government remained seated. The irish government's hatred of the English was greater than their hatred of Nazi atrocities. In fact the irish leader signed the condolence book at the German embassy after hearing of ******'s death.

We were over this ground before if I recall.

The Irish goverment took the political decision to remain neutral.
However, 150,000 Irishmen enlisted to fight against the Nazi's.
Most of these men joined the British Army.
The same Army which had occupied Ireland twenty years previously.


Colorado Ryder said:
Why do you chastise the US for not entering the war until 1941, when your own country never entered the war?

I highlight the lack of US involvement in WWII between 1939-1941 to highlight the fact that the USA only joined the war effort when it was attacked.
 
limerickman said:
We were over this ground before if I recall.

The Irish goverment took the political decision to remain neutral.
However, 150,000 Irishmen enlisted to fight against the Nazi's.
Most of these men joined the British Army.
The same Army which had occupied Ireland twenty years previously.
Yep. When it was time for your government to stand up and be counted as those against evil, YOUR government remained firmly seated.

limerickman said:
I highlight the lack of US involvement in WWII between 1939-1941 to highlight the fact that the USA only joined the war effort when it was attacked.
Tell us again why Americans should have fought in a war started by europeans. ****** didn't attack the US. He posed no threat to the US.
Seems as though we Americans could have watched you europeans beat each other to a bloody pulp.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
Yep. When it was time for your government to stand up and be counted as those against evil, YOUR government remained firmly seated.

I acknowledged this.

I also acknowledged the fact that 150,000 Irishmen, despite their goverments
political stance volunteered to fight in WWII.


Colorado Ryder said:
Tell us again why Americans should have fought in a war started by europeans. ****** didn't attack the US. He posed no threat to the US.
Seems as though we Americans could have watched you europeans beat each other to a bloody pulp.

Colorado Ryder said:
****** didn't attack the US. He posed no threat to the US.
.

Hitlers ally (Japan) attacked the USA in 1941.

Colorado Ryder said:
Tell us again why Americans should have fought in a war started by europeans.

The point was made earlier (not by you, but by a fellow American) that the USA did us Europeans a favour by helping out in WWII.

My contention has always been that your country was prepared not to join in WWII and to continue to profit from it's armament sales for the duration of the war, unless attacked.
It did profit between 1939-1941 afterall.


Colorado Ryder said:
Seems as though we Americans could have watched you europeans beat each other to a bloody pulp.

When the Japanese attacked your country, you had no choice but to attack Japan and it's ally Germany.
 
limerickman said:
I acknowledged this.

I also acknowledged the fact that 150,000 Irishmen, despite their goverments
political stance volunteered to fight in WWII.
You acknowledge that your government behaved cowardly during WWII.

limerickman said:
The point was made earlier (not by you, but by a fellow American) that the USA did us Europeans a favour by helping out in WWII.
You have still not given one reason why Americans should have fought in a war started by europeans and fought in europe.

limerickman said:
My contention has always been that your country was prepared not to join in WWII and to continue to profit from it's armament sales for the duration of the war, unless attacked. It did profit between 1939-1941 afterall.
You and Darkboong says Americans don't know history. Apparently neither do either of you. America in the 1930's was very isolationist. Public sentiment was that the war in europe was a european affair. It should be settled by europeans. Again, one reason why Americans should have fought in a european war.

limerickman said:
When the Japanese attacked your country, you had no choice but to attack Japan and it's ally Germany.
Not true. The US declared war on Japan on December 8th. Roosevelt didn't include Germany. Germany had not attacked the US. Germany declared war on the US on December 11th.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
You acknowledge that your government behaved cowardly during WWII.

It is you who stated that my country's goverment were cowardly.

Why do you not accuse your country of being cowardly between 1939-1941?
After all, your goverment chose not to fight against, what you describe as,
evil between 1939-1941?

Colorado Ryder said:
You have still not given one reason why Americans should have fought in a war started by europeans and fought in europe.

My contention from the outset regarding WWII and the USA, is that the USA
was fully prepared to not get involved in the war.
I have stated this throughout.

Your country only decided to join WWII after it was attacked by Germany's
Axis ally, Japan.

Colorado Ryder said:
You and Darkboong says Americans don't know history. Apparently neither do either of you. America in the 1930's was very isolationist. Public sentiment was that the war in europe was a european affair. It should be settled by europeans. Again, one reason why Americans should have fought in a european war.

If I recall America was on it's knees economically during the 1930's.
In the period after the 1929 crash, unemployment rocketted and your country was pre-occupied with trying to solve it's own problems without having to get involved in other conflicts like those of Spain for example.

Colorado Ryder said:
Not true. The US declared war on Japan on December 8th. Roosevelt didn't include Germany. Germany had not attacked the US. Germany declared war on the US on December 11th.

Roosevelt was restricted by the Neutrality Act - so you are correct.
Even though Japan was an ally of Germany, Roosevelt couldn't declare war
on Germany even though the dogs in the street knew that Germany fully supported Japans attack on the USA.
 
limerickman said:
Why do you not accuse your country of being cowardly between 1939-1941? After all, your goverment chose not to fight against, what you describe as, evil between 1939-1941?
The US instituted the LendLease program. The US was supplying material to the Allies before the US entered the war. Yes we did not fight from 1939-1941. Your government didn't fight from 1939-1945. They sat out the entire war. The US government listened to public sentiment and remained isolationist. The irish government didn't listen to its people. They thought it better to ******** the British than defeat the Nazis.
I'm still waiting for one reason why the US should have fought in a european war.

limerickman said:
My contention from the outset regarding WWII and the USA, is that the USA was fully prepared to not get involved in the war.
I have stated this throughout.
Americans didn't think it was our business to get involved in european affairs.

limerickman said:
If I recall America was on it's knees economically during the 1930's. In the period after the 1929 crash, unemployment rocketted and your country was pre-occupied with trying to solve it's own problems without having to get involved in other conflicts like those of Spain for example.
What is ireland's excuse for not getting involved?
 

Similar threads