Joe Sixpack, the Hitler question

[Almighty Colin]

"Hitler started World War 2. Is he somehow not responsible for it's conseqences? " - My friend, Joe

Is Hitler responsible then for Hiroshima?

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Colin@May 14 2004, 01:30 AM
"Hitler started World War 2. Is he somehow not responsible for it's conseqences? " - My friend, Joe

Is Hitler responsible then for Hiroshima?
Based on my statement, a fair question.

I guess the relevent question is: Was Hitler responsible for the Japanese attacking America?

Your thoughts?

[Joe Sixpack]

Maybe in retrospect I should have said Hitler was responsible for the consequences of the war in Europe.

I'll concede that.



Last edited by Joe Sixpack at May 14 2004, 01:49 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+May 14 2004, 04:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ May 14 2004, 04:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@May 14 2004, 01:30 AM
"Hitler started World War 2. Is he somehow not responsible for it's conseqences? " - My friend, Joe

Is Hitler responsible then for Hiroshima?
Based on my statement, a fair question.

I guess the relevent question is: Was Hitler responsible for the Japanese attacking America?

Your thoughts?[/b][/quote]
I think there's a large element of subjectivity to responsibility. Even when we consider the actions of a murderer many of us recognize the role that their environment and family upbringing played in it.

As far as Pearl Harbor, there were many factors. Of course, China and Japan were at war before war in Europe even broke out. China was one of the greatest allies of the US at the time and so that played a large role. Th oil situation was of course the Japanese casus belli. I have a book with all the newspaper clippings leading up to and after Pearl Harbor. It's really interesting.

Here are some headlines:

June 6. "Secret Plans of Japanese General Staff Preparing for War with a Western Power"

Dec 1. "F.D.R. Rushes to Capital; Far East Crisis Grave"

Dec 5. "Action Likely in Pacific"

Morning of Dec 7. "F.D.R Will Send Message to Emperor on War Crisis"

Pearl Harbor didn't come out of the blue. War was likely at that point. Seems to me the Japanese used their best strategy. If they could surprise and cripple the US fleet before declaring war they could possibly win. Right? wrong? The historians tell their versions and no one ever wins the arguments. The guys that win get more of their story told than the guys who lose.

As far as war in Europe, there's a long string of "what if's". What if the Versailles Treaty hadn't been so harsh on Germany? What if France and England hadn't declared war on Germany? Would Hitler have stopped?
And on and on.

Either way, when we get into causes of global politics events it seems to me that it's largely story-telling. People grabbing the elements that support their positions and trying to discredit the opposing reasons.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Colin+May 14 2004, 02:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ May 14 2004, 02:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Joe Sixpack@May 14 2004, 04:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@May 14 2004, 01:30 AM
"Hitler started World War 2. Is he somehow not responsible for it's conseqences? " - My friend, Joe

Is Hitler responsible then for Hiroshima?
Based on my statement, a fair question.

I guess the relevent question is: Was Hitler responsible for the Japanese attacking America?

Your thoughts?
I think there's a large element of subjectivity to responsibility. Even when we consider the actions of a murderer many of us recognize the role that their environment and family upbringing played in it.

As far as Pearl Harbor, there were many factors. Of course, China and Japan were at war before war in Europe even broke out. China was one of the greatest allies of the US at the time and so that played a large role. Th oil situation was of course the Japanese casus belli. I have a book with all the newspaper clippings leading up to and after Pearl Harbor. It's really interesting.

Here are some headlines:

June 6. "Secret Plans of Japanese General Staff Preparing for War with a Western Power"

Dec 1. "F.D.R. Rushes to Capital; Far East Crisis Grave"

Dec 5. "Action Likely in Pacific"

Morning of Dec 7. "F.D.R Will Send Message to Emperor on War Crisis"

Pearl Harbor didn't come out of the blue. War was likely at that point. Seems to me the Japanese used their best strategy. If they could surprise and cripple the US fleet before declaring war they could possibly win. Right? wrong? The historians tell their versions and no one ever wins the arguments. The guys that win get more of their story told than the guys who lose.

As far as war in Europe, there's a long string of "what if's". What if the Versailles Treaty hadn't been so harsh on Germany? What if France and England hadn't declared war on Germany? Would Hitler have stopped?
And on and on.

Either way, when we get into causes of global politics events it seems to me that it's largely story-telling. People grabbing the elements that support their positions and trying to discredit the opposing reasons.[/b][/quote]
I see what you're saying and I understand your points but surely you see Hitler himself as a catalyst, without whom, the war in Europe would probably have never broken out.

My point was that Bush's decision to go to war to topple Saddam has had a series of consequences (POW abuse, the infamous beheading) that would never have eventuated had this recent Iraq war never happened.

[PornoDoggy]

If the German General Staff hadn't found Hitler, they would have found someone else. Much of the framework for the German war machine, including the air force, was already in place by the time Hitler decided to start a revolution in a beer hall.

I'm not so sure that any easing of the financial terms of Versialles would have prevented the 2nd world war in Europe. There was going to be a rematch. Everybody in Germany knew it; everybody in France knew it.

If France and England had found the balls (or the French had gone it alone) to ENFORCE the provisions of the Versialles Treaty when the Germans reoccupied the Rhineland, then the 1st round of the 2nd world war in Europe might very well have been Germany vs the Soviet Union alone. Had THAT happened, (and assuming the same alliance evolved) then I think the Japanese would have looked north and west instead of south and east, and things would have gotten really, really fucked up once they defeated the Soviets - and a double strike could have done it.

If the Japanese would have shown Hitler the same courtesy against the Soviets that he showed them against America, then the likelyhood of an Allied victory becomes one hell of a lot more dicey.

You also have to wonder what would have happened if the French right would have spent a little less time worrying about the perceived threat of Communism and paid a little more attention to the very threat from the east.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@May 14 2004, 05:26 AM
I see what you're saying and I understand your points but surely you see Hitler himself as a catalyst, without whom, the war in Europe would probably have never broken out.

My point was that Bush's decision to go to war to topple Saddam has had a series of consequences (POW abuse, the infamous beheading) that would never have eventuated had this recent Iraq war never happened.
Absolutely. Without Hitler war in Europe would have been extremely unlikely at that time. Probably later though.

Bush's decision to go to war was certainly his and it certainly had a series of consequences. I think George Bush would agree with you. A decision to go to war means people are going to die. No one would disagree with that.

( Joe, Insert beaten down horse here ;-) )

One could also say the same thing of Saddam. None of this came out of the blue. Saddam was public enemy #1 in the US until September of 2001.

I don't believe that "this war would never have happened". It just wouldn't have happened yet. It seems to me that a showdown with Saddam was likely at some point. It was unlikely under a Clinton. It would probably have been unlikely under a Reagan. Certainly wouldn't have happened under Carter. Kerry or Gore? Those are good questions. Gore seemed to be pretty hawkish on Iraq over the years. Kerry? See below.

US legislation continually aimed at his head over the past decade. One such example is the "Iraq Liberation Act" signed into law in 1998. It became official US policy to remove Saddam from power at that point. Not through war but through funding opposition groups. There are more. They are easy to find. Let's not forget the tough statements by members of the US congress on both the democratic and republican side. Why did Congress authorize Bush' use of force? Ummm, easy. Because Saddam has been a thorn for a decade.

What did Mr. McCain say? "Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows".

Only later as war became imminent did the event become a political split in the US between parties.

I think it likely that another US president would have done the same thing at some point. Of course, an administration with Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney gave a much higher probability to this than the previous administration. Many in the administration were vocally hawkish on Iraq. Those guys expecially. Many in congress were vocally hawkish on Iraq.

What did Mr. Kerry say on the eve of war? "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"

Saddam played a role too.

What should Saddam assume responsibilty for? What should Bush assume responsibility for? How about Blair? Howard? Congress? Cheney? Bush I? Clinton? John Kerry? Senator McCain? How much responsibility should Chiraq assume for the global split between the US and rest of the world? Rumsfeld?
Good questions, I think. Many interesting answers.

In a sense, I agree with you. Bush must assume responsibility for what is his decision and his decision alone. In the end, the president was authorized to
make the final decision to go to war and he did.

On the other hand, there was a whole lot of history heading towards this place and time. It was likely that Saddam was going to end up in US custody at some point. Statement after statement and legislation after legislation made that point clear. He has been the marked man of US policy for quite some time.



Last edited by Colin at May 14 2004, 06:17 AM