Bush/Cheney have disgraced their office; they should resign

[limerickman]

The US instituted the LendLease program. The US was supplying material to the Allies before the US entered the war.

Hold on.

You were supplying both sides.

Your country was profiteering, CR.

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.

Our political leaders enforced Irelands state of neutrality between 1939-1945.
I do think that there was a distinct problem with the fact that Winston Churchill was PM of Britain at the time.
His activities in Ireland and his opposition to Irish national soverignty during 1918-1922 antagonised the ruling political leaders here in Ireland between 1939-1945.

It is a matter of opinion as to whether your goverment listened to public sentiment for it's stance between 1939-1941.
Yes, politicians like Hoover wanted to stay out of WWII because of the financial cost outstanding pertaining to WWI.
But many others wanted to get involved in WWII.

Americans didn't think it was our business to get involved in european affairs.

That's up for debate.

What is ireland's excuse for not getting involved?

Politically the goverment chose not to.

5% of our population enlisted to fight though.

What percentage of your country's population enlisted to fight ?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Hold on. You were supplying both sides. Your country was profiteering, CR.

Did we provide warships to the Germans? Did we provide aircraft to the Germans?

Our political leaders enforced Irelands state of neutrality between 1939-1945. I do think that there was a distinct problem with the fact that Winston Churchill was PM of Britain at the time. His activities in Ireland and his opposition to Irish national soverignty during 1918-1922 antagonised the ruling political leaders here in Ireland between 1939-1945.

So it was more important to ******** the British than to actually stand up with the rest of the world and fight evil. Was signing the German condolence book also meant as a poke in the eye to the British?

It is a matter of opinion as to whether your goverment listened to public sentiment for it's stance between 1939-1941.
Yes, politicians like Hoover wanted to stay out of WWII because of the financial cost outstanding pertaining to WWI. But many others wanted to get involved in WWII.

Funny you reference Hoover. Since he was out of politics after 1932! Maybe if you read some American history rather than the european view of American history you would know that the US was very isolationist in the 1930's.

5% of our population enlisted to fight though.
What percentage of your country's population enlisted to fight ?

What percentage of irishmen fought at the Coral Sea, or Midway, or Guadalcanal, or Tarawa, or Iwo Jima, or the Phillipines, or Okinawa?

 

[limerickman]

Funny you reference Hoover. Since he was out of politics after 1932! Maybe if you read some American history rather than the european view of American history you would know that the US was very isolationist in the 1930's.

Seems you grasp of Herbert Hoover's career is as inadequate as your grasp of history.

If Hoover was out of politics in 1932 as you claim.
How come Hoover was appointed the Republican Party Foreign Affairs spokesman in ther late 30's?
Hoover's speech in the aftermath of Hitlers annexation of parts of Czechoslovakia are well known.
Moravia and Bohemia speeches by Hoover in 1939 for instance.
Hoover was very active in US politics under Presidents Truman and Eisenhower too.
Strange that. for a guy who "out of politics in 1932"!

I already told you why the USA was isolationist in the 1930's.

Did we provide warships to the Germans? Did we provide aircraft to the Germans?

Do we need to mention Prescott Bush and his cronies ?

So it was more important to ******** the British than to actually stand up with the rest of the world and fight evil. Was signing the German condolence book also meant as a poke in the eye to the British?

Actually we did support the British to the extent that they had limited access to our ports.
Nothing official mind.

We interned Germans national living here : and any British pilots who got shot down over Ireland were handed back to Britain whereas German pilots were
interned.

What percentage of irishmen fought at the Coral Sea, or Midway, or Guadalcanal, or Tarawa, or Iwo Jima, or the Phillipines, or Okinawa?

I don't know.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Seems you grasp of Herbert Hoover's career is as inadequate as your grasp of history.

Right! The republican party was so powerful in the 1930's. Everyone hung on every word that Hoover said. Hoover was appointed to many commissions by presidents but he wielded little political power. People listened more to Charles Lindbergh's isolation views that Hoover. Further its very doubtful Americans would listen to Hoover after 1932. He was seen as the cause of the depression.

Hoover was very active in US politics under Presidents Truman and Eisenhower too. Strange that. for a guy who "out of politics in 1932"!

Strange that these were appointments after the war. When isolationism was dead.

Actually we did support the British to the extent that they had limited access to our ports. Nothing official mind. We interned Germans national living here : and any British pilots who got shot down over Ireland were handed back to Britain whereas German pilots were
interned.

Not enough support though to "officially" enter the war and fight the Nazis.

I don't know.

1 in 10 Americans served in the war.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Seems you grasp of Herbert Hoover's career is as inadequate as your grasp of history.

If Hoover was out of politics in 1932 as you claim.
How come Hoover was appointed the Republican Party Foreign Affairs spokesman in ther late 30's?
Hoover's speech in the aftermath of Hitlers annexation of parts of Czechoslovakia are well known.
Moravia and Bohemia speeches by Hoover in 1939 for instance.
Hoover was very active in US politics under Presidents Truman and Eisenhower too.
Strange that. for a guy who "out of politics in 1932"!

My grasp is inadequate? You left out a liitle bit about Hoover. This dandy little bit of info.......

In 1940, Hoover said that ******'s victory over Europe was assured, and what America needed was a man as President who could do business with ******, and who had never alienated him. This is detailed in the Charles Peters book "Five Days in Philadelphia."........

Hmmmm.....
Later Career.

Nominated for reelection in 1932, Hoover was defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. He wrote and spoke against Roosevelt’s New Deal, but little attention was paid to him except at Republican national conventions, where he ritually appeared every four years to be hailed as an elder statesman. Under Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, however, he headed two groups (known as the Hoover Commissions) that planned an extensive reorganization of the executive branch of the government. Hoover’s books include American Individualism (1922), The Challenge to Liberty (1934), and Memoirs (3 vol., 1951–52). He died Oct. 20, 1964, in New York City. P.A.C., PAUL A. CARTER, M.A., Ph.D.

 

[limerickman]

My grasp is inadequate? You left out a liitle bit about Hoover. This dandy little bit of info.......

In 1940, Hoover said that ******'s victory over Europe was assured, and what America needed was a man as President who could do business with ******, and who had never alienated him. This is detailed in the Charles Peters book "Five Days in Philadelphia."........

Hmmmm.....
Later Career.

Nominated for reelection in 1932, Hoover was defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. He wrote and spoke against Roosevelt’s New Deal, but little attention was paid to him except at Republican national conventions, where he ritually appeared every four years to be hailed as an elder statesman. Under Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, however, he headed two groups (known as the Hoover Commissions) that planned an extensive reorganization of the executive branch of the government. Hoover’s books include American Individualism (1922), The Challenge to Liberty (1934), and Memoirs (3 vol., 1951–52). He died Oct. 20, 1964, in New York City. P.A.C., PAUL A. CARTER, M.A., Ph.D.

You claimed earlier that Hoover was out of politics in 1932.
In an attempt to suggest that I was mistaken about Hoover.

I wasn't mistaken about Hoover - and my subsequent posts highlighting the
fact that Hoover was active in politics until the 1950's show that I was correct about Hoover.
I also stated earlier that Hoover made speeches about ****** in the immediate
aftermath of the Nazi invasion of Czechozlovakia,

This is incidental to the entire discussion anyhow as to why the USA did not enter the war between 1939-1941.
The USA, as I stated earlier, was in the throes of the depression and the lehislation like the Neutrality Act was enacted to try to protect the USA
from becoming engaged in issues abroad.

It has been my view that the USA would never have entered the war, if Japan
had not decided to bomb Pearl Harbour.
That has been my view consistently.

 

[wolfix]

Hoover was actually a somewhat unpopular President , with his inability to bring America out of it's economic slump.. One of my old riding routes went near Hoover's birthplace. Hoover's wife was born where I lived most of my life. My ex-wife was a member of a Lou Hoover society of some sort. And most of the things I read about Hoover was that he was not regarded as a "good" president.

The people did not want involvment in the European Theater. Here in the midwest we had a high percentage of people with a German background. Near me is a old POW camp where german military people were kept. During the day they were released to the farmers in the area to help. Many stayed after the war. There still is some real old people who believe we should not have gone against Germany. Japan was a whole different matter.. The Japanese are still looked at with some distrust. The American s got involved because of some backhanded politics of American politicians and possibly Churchhill...... And looking back on it, which is easy with hindsight, we should been involved.
American are not the only ones who get taught propaganda at an early age. A former customer of mine who is a professor of History said once that International students know as little about history as much as American students. Part of the propaganda that makes up nationalistic pride is twisting history to see it from an individuals perspective.


But this is something that bothers me ....... People are attacking America for being an isolated country as far as Europe goes in 1935---- And we were. But now with this Iraq thing we are being attacked for not staying home..... And Saddam was a potential threat and has attacked other countries.... Maybe the WMD's was not what we thought they were, but there were signs of posionous gas being used. And the terrorist threat was real as far as training camps and such.....

The Hollywood movie thing is something that gives America a bad name over seas. People see this American lifestyle on film and believe that is the way we are..... It is as abstract to the average American as it is to other nationalities. Of course the films show American heroics , it is targeted for American audiences and films are a form of entertainment.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

You claimed earlier that Hoover was out of politics in 1932.
In an attempt to suggest that I was mistaken about Hoover.
I wasn't mistaken about Hoover - and my subsequent posts highlighting the
fact that Hoover was active in politics until the 1950's show that I was correct about Hoover.
I also stated earlier that Hoover made speeches about ****** in the immediate
aftermath of the Nazi invasion of Czechozlovakia,

You attempted to make it seem as if Hoover still commanded attention. I proved that to be false. Truman in 1947 then Eisenhower in 1953 asked Hoover to head a commision to streamline government. What about Hoover's statement from 1940?

It has been my view that the USA would never have entered the war, if Japan had not decided to bomb Pearl Harbour.
That has been my view consistently.

Your view has been that the US was only interested in profiteering from the war and that American actions were somehow less noble than other countries. You then have the gall to claim how noble the irish were. A country that refused to enter the war at all. And then to top it off signed the condolence book for ******'s death.
And you still have not answered the question of why the US should have fought in a european war.

 

[limerickman]

Not enough support though to "officially" enter the war and fight the Nazis.


1 in 10 Americans served in the war.

Neither the Nazi's or their Allies (Japan or Italy) ever attacked my country.
So officially, we never had reason to engage in WWII
(we were only a country of 2m people at that time - we were economically destitute, what could we do?)

If you're asking me was that sufficient reason to stay out of WWII, I think not

I'd one relative that joined the British Army to fight in WWII.
150,000 Irishmen enlisted - most joined the British Army.
A very small amount joined the US army.
Those men and women did the correct thing, I think.
And although our official contribution to war effort may have been neutral,
I consider that 150,000 volunteers to be a worthy commitment to fight what was a just fight.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Neither the Nazi's or their Allies (Japan or Italy) ever attacked my country.
So officially, we never had reason to engage in WWII
(we were only a country of 2m people at that time - we were economically destitute, what could we do?)

Dublin was bombed on May 30, 1941. Isn't that provocation enough to go to war?

I'd one relative that joined the British Army to fight in WWII. 150,000 Irishmen enlisted - most joined the British Army.
A very small amount joined the US army. Those men and women did the correct thing, I think. And although our official contribution to war effort may have been neutral, I consider that 150,000 volunteers to be a worthy commitment to fight what was a just fight.

I'm not knocking irishmen's contributions to the war regardless of what the irish government did. But to say that all efforts were equal is wrong. The US was a major contributor to winning the war. The US had factories that were out of reach of the Germans and Japanese. These factories supplied a great amount of the war materials used by the Allies including the Soviets. Just because the Soviets lost more men than the US doesn't mean then contributed more. The US didn't have morons for military leaders that sacrificed men just because they had a lot of them. Soviets didn't try to enter the Pacific war until it was nearly over. The US made major contributions to both theaters of war. The US basically defeated the Japanese single handedly. Most Americans just want to be respected for the sacrifices that we made for others in WW2.

 

[EoinC]

...The US basically defeated the Japanese single handedly...

Whoaa!!! I know (knew) plenty of New Zealand and Australian Vet's who would beg to differ there, CR. Thanks for your appreciation of their efforts. Thanks also on behalf of the people of the Philippines, PNG, Solomon Islands, Malaya (Malaysia), Indonesia, Vietnam, Burma (Myanmar) and the many other small Nations who, with very little means to do so, put up a very strong resistance against the Japanese forces - often completely without support from external forces. I used to live with a family in Timor whose father / husband had been decapitated when, as a Harbourmaster in Kalimantan, he had organised efforts to prevent Japanese ships entering the Harbour.
Before you speak of singlehanded, take a trip to the Sandakan Military Cemetary in Sabah, or a stroll over the Kukoda Trail in PNG. If you think you did it singlehanded, you are very seriously mistaken, and you do those who reisisted, or joined the fight (such as NZ and Australia) a great disservice.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Whoaa!!! I know (knew) plenty of New Zealand and Australian Vet's who would beg to differ there, CR. Thanks for your appreciation of their efforts. Thanks also on behalf of the people of the Philippines, PNG, Solomon Islands, Malaya (Malaysia), Indonesia, Vietnam, Burma (Myanmar) and the many other small Nations who, with very little means to do so, put up a very strong resistance against the Japanese forces - often completely without support from external forces. I used to live with a family in Timor whose father / husband had been decapitated when, as a Harbourmaster in Kalimantan, he had organised efforts to prevent Japanese ships entering the Harbour.
Before you speak of singlehanded, take a trip to the Sandakan Military Cemetary in Sabah, or a stroll over the Kukoda Trail in PNG. If you think you did it singlehanded, you are very seriously mistaken, and you do those who reisisted, or joined the fight (such as NZ and Australia) a great disservice.

I knew I'd hear it from the Aussies and NZ. They definitely contributed to the defeat of Japan. However, the US was the major contributor in defeating Japan. The US fought island to island to get close enough to bomb Japan.

 

[darkboong]

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.

Austria got "united" with Germany in '38. Europe started preparing for War with Germany in the mid 30s. Certainly British espionage was already well underway by the early 30s (that is a part of my family history).

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.

The thousands of miles and hostile relations between the two certainly won't have helped. Europe didn't prevent the attack on Nanking, nor did the US, and neither side's descendents are claiming that they single handedly saved China from the Japanese.

Is there anymore to know than American soldiers died in europe in a war started by europeans which could have been prevented by europeans?

I guess us Yooropeeeons should have shot Prescott Bush in the head and that would have starved the Nazi Party of funds until it disintegrated.

They then invaded Finland in 1940. The Russians made a pact with the devil and then paid a terrible price for it.

Talvisota started in '39 and the Finns and lasted for 4 months. It was an old dispute that had been on the boil since the Finns fought their way to independance during the First World War.

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.

Not at all, we were talking about the European theatre. If you want to open it up to the Pacific theatre then sure, Europeans fought there too. You've heard of Burma and Singapore, right ? If you want to broaden it further troops of the British Empire fought all around the globe (including the Eastern Front).

 

[Colorado Ryder]

The thousands of miles and hostile relations between the two certainly won't have helped. Europe didn't prevent the attack on Nanking, nor did the US, and neither side's descendents are claiming that they single handedly saved China from the Japanese.

It wasn't prevented but the US did take action following Japan's invasion of China. An embargo of petroleum and scrap iron was put in place. Some on this site chastise the US for not entering the european war until the end of 1941.
But then conveniently forget that another war was going that europeans didn't think warranted their action.

I guess us Yooropeeeons should have shot Prescott Bush in the head and that would have starved the Nazi Party of funds until it disintegrated.

Could have. Or you could've not appeased the Germans in the 1930's. Or the whole war could have been avoided had the Brits and Frenchies insisted on the harsh Versailles Treaty.

Talvisota started in '39 and the Finns and lasted for 4 months. It was an old dispute that had been on the boil since the Finns fought their way to independance during the First World War.

Does that justify a Soviet invasion?

Not at all, we were talking about the European theatre. If you want to open it up to the Pacific theatre then sure, Europeans fought there too. You've heard of Burma and Singapore, right ? If you want to broaden it further troops of the British Empire fought all around the globe (including the Eastern Front).

No we are talking about contributions that led to the end of the war. We can talk about the Pacific war. Heard of burma and Singapore? Didn't you lose Singapore? Have you heard of Midway? Iwo Jima? Okinawa? Guadalcanal? Tarawa? Those are the victories that enabled the US to destroy Japan.

troops of the British Empire fought all around the globe (including the Eastern Front).

Really! Stalin allowed British troops to fight with the Soviets?

 

[EoinC]

...the ANZACS forces were primarily against the Japanese forces in Asia...

...and Greece, Crete, Italy and North Africa (Tobruk, El Alamein and Minqar Qaim). Charles Upham (the only combat soldier ever to win 2 Victoria Crosses) picked up his first VC during the defeat of Crete -http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/theartofwar/valgal/valour/INF3_0429.htm

and his second at El Alamein. Here's his story -
http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/upham.html

For something completely different (and not really a Kiwi claim-to-fame), have a read of this -
http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/wake.html#WAKE
What a battler! It took a lot of individuals to win WW2 for the Allies. I think that it is largely irrelevant where they came from. My appreciation is to those people, not to their Governments.

 

[limerickman]

Dublin was bombed on May 30, 1941. Isn't that provocation enough to go to war?

Dublin was bombed by the Luftwaffe - the Nazi's always claimed that this bombing was done by mistake and stated so in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
This attack took place during the final stage of the Battle of Britain.

But to say that all efforts were equal is wrong. The US was a major contributor to winning the war. The US had factories that were out of reach of the Germans and Japanese. These factories supplied a great amount of the war materials used by the Allies including the Soviets. Just because the Soviets lost more men than the US doesn't mean then contributed more. The US didn't have morons for military leaders that sacrificed men just because they had a lot of them. Soviets didn't try to enter the Pacific war until it was nearly over. The US made major contributions to both theaters of war. The US basically defeated the Japanese single handedly. Most Americans just want to be respected for the sacrifices that we made for others in WW2.

No one suggested that the US didn't play a very central role in WWII.
The USA did and I know from speaking with one US veteran with whom I used to be in regular contact in Ga., that the US vets got full recognition from
many many Europeans who were under Nazi occupation.

But to suggest that the US solely "liberated Europe" is inaccurate.

In respect of the war in the Pacific : yes the USA did play a very major part in that as well.
As did the Aussies and the New Zealanders, Malaysians, British.

 

[darkboong]

Does that justify a Soviet invasion?

Of course not, but you got your facts wrong regarding Talvisota.

No we are talking about contributions that led to the end of the war. We can talk about the

Not quite. You were claiming the Europeans didn't fight in the Pacific theatre, they most certainly did (although as you point out they got clobbered at the start). If you want to restrict it to contributions that ended the war, the British scientists who worked on the Manhattan project, provided Radar and code-breaking to the Americans would count.

Really! Stalin allowed British troops to fight with the Soviets?

The RAF provided support for a few operations and delivered and protected supplies (including Hurricanes and Spitfires). The US provided P-39s and B-25s which had been rejected as poorly armored and underperforming for combat in the European Theatre.

That said at least one Russian Ace flew a P-39.

 

[darkboong]

Dublin was bombed by the Luftwaffe - the Nazi's always claimed that this bombing was done by mistake and stated so in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

You've got to admit that excuse sounds a bit thin Lim. Their bombers were struggling to reach British targets, they would have needed to have fueled the planes up for the extra mileage and pretty much throw out everything that wasn't nailed down for a start.

 

[EoinC]

I knew I'd hear it from the Aussies and NZ. They definitely contributed to the defeat of Japan. However, the US was the major contributor in defeating Japan. The US fought island to island to get close enough to bomb Japan.

CR, if you still don't realise that the "singlehanded" comment is ********, you really do need to do a little more research on what happened throughout the Pacific Theatre (and not just contain it to the areas where American Forces were involved). The US Forces fought "island to island" in conjunction with a lot of other people. It would be nice to see you pay a little more respect to those people. The fight to overcome the Japanese was not just John Wayne in Iwo Jima.
In terms of numbers, USA was the largest contributor. In terms of effort and sacrifice, not necessarily so. You make the point that 10% of your population joined up - 12.5% of ours did, with another 6.25% taking up arms for home defence, and that was without us being attacked.
I, personally, thank all of those who took part, regardless of where they came from. I don't know any WW2 Vet's who would claim that anything was done singlehandedly when it came to defeating the Axis Powers. It surprises me that this is your view of how the victory came about.

 

[EoinC]

...12.5% of ours did...

Correction - 18.4% of our population. No wonder things were difficult back on the farms.
( Ref. http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/statistics/ww2.htm )