"John Cairns" wrote in message
. net...

Tojo and Hirohito share one thing in common with you, Buchanan and Hitler.
They were all delusional.

Unlike Hitler, I was never elected to political office in a Democracy or
legitimately appointed Chancellor of a Democracy.


The Japanese militarists felt that war with the US
over domination of the Pacific rim was inevitable and welcomed it,
thinking
that Japan would prevail.

Militarists politicians, right? What made them think they would win? Blind
patriotism? A belief that they were superior as a people? If they were
isolationists, there would be no war, am I correct?

Many in the military, including folks like
Yamamoto, knew that this wasn't true.

Of course, they understand what it takes to win.

History has proven over and over again
that the type of reflexive isolationism espoused by Buchanan and the
America
First Committee in the 30's is a serious mistake that leads to events like
WWII.

Have you been reading the history books about our government furnished in
our government schools?

The US Navy stood down the Japs in China in the 1930's:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/china.htm

America was not isolationist. We were in China, the Phillipines, Hawaii,
Alaska, Cleveland, etc. Maybe we weren't imperialist enough for your tastes.


Early intervention by ANY of the major European powers in the 1930's
would have relegated Hitler to a historical footnote, which is the real
dirty secret

What secret? They surrendered to him before the war even started. Ever hear
of appeasement? The spineless British and French gave away a sovereign
country that they didn't own or control!

..A strong military demonstration by the US in the 30's would
have discouraged the Japanese militarists from the adventurism they
subsequently embarked on, with disastrous results.

Are you saying we should have started a war with the Japs in the 30's? If
not, then give an example of military intervention.

Amen!


John Cairns

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
k.net...

"John Cairns" wrote in message
. net...

Tojo and Hirohito share one thing in common with you, Buchanan and
Hitler.
They were all delusional.

Unlike Hitler, I was never elected to political office in a Democracy or
legitimately appointed Chancellor of a Democracy.

http://carpebonum.net/archives/2005/...not_demo_1.php

Ah, neither was Hitler. Lost every election he ever participated it

The Japanese militarists felt that war with the US
over domination of the Pacific rim was inevitable and welcomed it,
thinking
that Japan would prevail.

Militarists politicians, right? What made them think they would win? Blind
patriotism? A belief that they were superior as a people? If they were
isolationists, there would be no war, am I correct?

Yeah, and if yer aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. What made them think
they would win is:

A. They did consider themselves superior "as a people". They still have this
attitude today to a very large degree.
B. They-the militarists-were blissfully ignorant of the industrial might of
the US, as was Hitler.

Many in the military, including folks like
Yamamoto, knew that this wasn't true.

Of course, they understand what it takes to win.

History has proven over and over again
that the type of reflexive isolationism espoused by Buchanan and the
America
First Committee in the 30's is a serious mistake that leads to events
like
WWII.

Have you been reading the history books about our government furnished in
our government schools?

Actually, all of my primary and secondary education was in private schools.

You mean the books that talk about the Neutrality Act?

The US Navy stood down the Japs in China in the 1930's:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/china.htm

Can't help but thinking that they weren't impressed, if they had been, no
Pearl Harbor.
They sank the Panay and we merely protested, not a very impressive
"demonstration" to an agressor.
Not much of a stand down either.

America was not isolationist. We were in China, the Phillipines, Hawaii,
Alaska, Cleveland, etc. Maybe we weren't imperialist enough for your
tastes.

Ah, there's a word you don't read very often. "imperialist" Like Iraq,
maybe?
BTW, all of those places you mentioned were examples of good old late19th
century "imperialism".
You also forgot about Cuba, Puerto Rico and Central America. Nothing like
imperialism in your own back yard, much more convenient, doncha think?

Early intervention by ANY of the major European powers in the 1930's
would have relegated Hitler to a historical footnote, which is the real
dirty secret

What secret? They surrendered to him before the war even started. Ever
hear
of appeasement? The spineless British and French gave away a sovereign
country that they didn't own or control!

Well maybe you can explain this statement to me. How does someone "give
away" something they "don't own or control"? Is it something like selling
the Brooklyn bridge to a tourist? Seriously though, do you honestly believe
that the US would have done ANYTHING different at Munich? Was there mass
outrage in the US over Munich?
"The lend-lease policy translated into legislative form, stunned a Congress
and a nation wholly sympathetic to the cause of Great Britain. The Kaiser's
blank check to Austria-Hungary in the First World War was a piker compared
to the Roosevelt blank check of World War II. It warranted my worst fears
for the future of America, and it definitely stamps the President as
war-minded.

The lend-lease-give program is the New Deal's triple-A foreign policy; it
will plow under every fourth American boy. Never before have the American
people been asked or compelled to give so bounteously and so completely of
their tax dollars to any foreign nation. Never before has the Congress of
the United States been asked by any President to violate international law.
Never before has this nation resorted to duplicity in the conduct of its
foreign affairs. Never before has the United States given to one man the
power to strip this nation of its defenses. Never before has a Congress
coldly and flatly been asked to abdicate.

If the American people want a dictatorship - if they want a totalitarian
form of government and if they want war - this
bill should be steam-rollered through Congress, as is the wont of President
Roosevelt.

Approval of this legislation means war, open and complete warfare. I,
therefore, ask the American people before they supinely accept it - Was the
last World War worthwhile?

If it were, then we should lend and lease war materials. If it were, then we
should lend and lease American boys. President Roosevelt has said we would
be repaid by England. We will be. We will be repaid, just as England repaid
her war debts of the First World War - repaid those dollars wrung from the
sweat of labor and the toil of farmers with cries of "Uncle Shylock." Our
boys will be returned - returned in caskets, maybe; returned with bodies
maimed; returned with minds warped and twisted by sights of horrors and the
scream and shriek of high-powered shells."

Senator Burton Wheeler co-founder America First Committee

All of this AFTER the Germans had overrun Europe, but they were only French,
right?

You also need to remember that Germany declared war on the US, not
vice-versa.

Do you honestly think the US would have declared war on Germany in December
'41 if the Germans had not done so first?




.A strong military demonstration by the US in the 30's would
have discouraged the Japanese militarists from the adventurism they
subsequently embarked on, with disastrous results.

Are you saying we should have started a war with the Japs in the 30's? If
not, then give an example of military intervention.

Read again, it's right there. Military demonstration. Maybe you can give
some examples of demonstrating military preparedness and superiority short
of military intervention.

I'll give you a hint. It starts with military preparedness

John Cairns

Amen!


John Cairns

Tojo and Hirohito share one thing in common with you, Buchanan and
Hitler.
They were all delusional.


Tojo & Hirohito were not delusional at all. Hitler wasn't
either in the beginning of his career.

Unlike Hitler, I was never elected to political office in a Democracy or
legitimately appointed Chancellor of a Democracy.


John Cairns wrote:
http://carpebonum.net/archives/2005/...not_demo_1.php

Ah, neither was Hitler. Lost every election he ever participated it

It's a common misconception that Hitler was elected to rule
Germany. His party did fairly well in elections but it was
ruthlessness & mendacity (a very cleverly directed publicity
campaign) that put him in the drivers seat.



The Japanese militarists felt that war with the US
over domination of the Pacific rim was inevitable and welcomed it,
thinking
that Japan would prevail.


Don't think so.
At that time the US was one of Japans best trading partners.
We were selling them oil among other things.

Militarists politicians, right? What made them think they would win? Blind
patriotism? A belief that they were superior as a people? If they were
isolationists, there would be no war, am I correct?


Yeah, and if yer aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. What made them think
they would win is:

A. They did consider themselves superior "as a people". They still have this
attitude today to a very large degree.

Don't want to say that's not true, but the main reason they
thought they could win was that they determined to strike
powerfully at the US and convince us that we'd be better off
taking terms & going back to doing profitable business with
them.

B. They-the militarists-were blissfully ignorant of the industrial might of
the US, as was Hitler.


I don't think that's true at all, at least not for the ones
with the intelligence (in the human sense) to run their
armies & fleets & squadrons with any effectiveness. It was
obvious to anybody who even casually scanned the business
section of the newspaper that the US was the world's leading
industrial power from the 1890s onward. Military strategists
pay attention to these things.

The Japanese were not stupid. Arrogant & ruthless, yes.
Dumb... no.



History has proven over and over again
that the type of reflexive isolationism espoused by Buchanan and the
America
First Committee in the 30's is a serious mistake that leads to events
like
WWII.

Oddly enough, people who scream nowadays about how we can't
win by "appeasement" of the terrorists are of the same
political stripe that *hated* Roosevelt and did not want the
US to get involved in WW2.


Actually, all of my primary and secondary education was in private schools.

You mean the books that talk about the Neutrality Act?

Exactly.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
It's a common misconception that Hitler was elected to rule
Germany. His party did fairly well in elections but it was
ruthlessness & mendacity (a very cleverly directed publicity
campaign) that put him in the drivers seat.

I'm under that impression, Tell us more.


The Japanese were not stupid.

Neither are most Americans but Bush led us to attack Iraq and we reelected
him.

It's a common misconception that Hitler was elected to rule
Germany. His party did fairly well in elections but it was
ruthlessness & mendacity (a very cleverly directed publicity
campaign) that put him in the drivers seat.


Vito wrote:
I'm under that impression, Tell us more.


The German election(s) never produced a Nazi majority nor
did they elect Hitler as Chancellor. The National Socialists
(Nazis) did pull in enough votes that they could have been a
major player in a coalition gov't, but Hitler didn't have
the patience for that nor the temperament to work
productively with others. Instead he went to the duly
elected President (Von Hindenburg, an old-guard Prussian)
and made a back room deal to have himself appointed
Chancellor. This gave him the authority he needed to order
soldiers to prevent most of the anti-Nazi representatives
from voting against his measures grabbing further power.

Hitler took power in what amounted to a coup d'etat. He was
popular enough that people put up with it, and waged a
full-time public relations campaign to gain more popularity.

Same thing has been done before... Cromwell immediately
comes to mind.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
It's a common misconception that Hitler was elected to rule
Germany. His party did fairly well in elections but it was
ruthlessness & mendacity (a very cleverly directed publicity
campaign) that put him in the drivers seat.


Vito wrote:
I'm under that impression, Tell us more.


The German election(s) never produced a Nazi majority nor
did they elect Hitler as Chancellor. The National Socialists
(Nazis) did pull in enough votes that they could have been a
major player in a coalition gov't, but Hitler didn't have
the patience for that nor the temperament to work
productively with others. Instead he went to the duly
elected President (Von Hindenburg, an old-guard Prussian)
and made a back room deal to have himself appointed
Chancellor. This gave him the authority he needed to order
soldiers to prevent most of the anti-Nazi representatives
from voting against his measures grabbing further power.

Hitler took power in what amounted to a coup d'etat. He was
popular enough that people put up with it, and waged a
full-time public relations campaign to gain more popularity.

Hitler become Chancellor by legitimate, constitutional means. He was
appointed, all well within the German Constitution.





Same thing has been done before... Cromwell immediately
comes to mind.

DSK

Bob Crantz wrote:
Hitler become Chancellor by legitimate, constitutional means. He was
appointed, all well within the German Constitution.


Technically that may be true, as far as his appointment
goes... maybe the accounts that he threatened Von
Hindenburg's family are just rumors & slander.

It certainly was not constitutional to forcibly prevent duly
elected representatives from voting in the Reichstag, and
that is how he gained most of his powers.

DSK

Thanks!

"DSK" wrote
The German election(s) never produced a Nazi majority nor
did they elect Hitler as Chancellor. The National Socialists
(Nazis) did pull in enough votes that they could have been a
major player in a coalition gov't, but Hitler didn't have
the patience for that nor the temperament to work
productively with others. Instead he went to the duly
elected President (Von Hindenburg, an old-guard Prussian)
and made a back room deal to have himself appointed
Chancellor. This gave him the authority he needed to order
soldiers to prevent most of the anti-Nazi representatives
from voting against his measures grabbing further power.

Hitler took power in what amounted to a coup d'etat. He was
popular enough that people put up with it, and waged a
full-time public relations campaign to gain more popularity.

Same thing has been done before... Cromwell immediately
comes to mind.

DSK