- Status
J
jeffrey_erwin
Guest
I tend to favor the Democrat candidates. However, when it comes to involving the USA in war, the Democrats have no advantage. It was Wilson that got us in ot WW I which led directly to WW II. Then Truman started the French Indo-China war (financed by the USA.) Finally, we have LBJ who started the “American” Vietnam war.
Therefore, Trump, as bombastic as he is, might not be any worse than a democrat.
Therefore, Trump, as bombastic as he is, might not be any worse than a democrat.
C
ChadS
Guest
It seems to me that your reading of history is a little reductionistic and incredibly simplified.
For example the French were five years deep in the First Indochina War before the US supplied the French with any weapons or equipment.
I’m not sure if you are arguing a Democrat got the US involved in WWII? If anything it was the Japanese and Germans that really got us involved. I’m not sure anybody would want to make the case that the US would be better off having stayed out of the war or having to contend with a Nazi occupied Europe and a Japanese dominated Asia.
ChadS
J
josephback
Guest
Quas Primas? In the U.S. we’re raised from a very young age on the idea of separation, but the Gospel does have political import. Subordinating the spiritual to the temporal realm and measuring well being in material progress is a danger but if a pastor does not provide guidance to his flock on faith and moral issues, he abdicates his duty. MLK Jr. would get political.
J
jeffrey_erwin
Guest
**Thanks for your reply, Chad. I really do think that the history is simple.
The unnecessary US involvement in WW I caused the settlement terms of that war to be very unfair to Germany, and that unfairness enabled the Nasis to take power and start WW II.
Truman started the French Vietnam war by refusing to recognise the legitimate independent government of Vietnam (whose resistance army, the Viet Minh, had a formal alliance with the USA against Japan.)
Instead, Mr. Truman ordered the US Merchant Marine to transport French troops to Vietnam for its re-colonization and re-enslavement. Merchant Marine sailors actually sent a written protest to Mr. Truman.
The Japanese had close ties with Nasi Germany, and, without Mr. Hitler’s support, they may have hesitated to declare war on the USA. **
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Life isn’t simple, and past life isn’t simple, either. To take your first points, the Versailles Treaty remains a heavily fought-over area among historians but really very few of them would agree with the simple statements that the treaty was “very unfair to Germany” or that it was simply the treaty that enabled the Nazis to take power.
C
ChadS
Guest
Unfortunately history is made up of the actions of people, all of whom retain agency and the ability to make decisions. That makes any talk of simplicity highly suspect in my opinion. If things really were simple there would be one book on every subject and the case would be closed.
To take one example France, has a member of the Allies, felt they had a right to retain their empire. As you also failed to mention the Chinese were in Vietnam at this point supposedly to escort any remaining Japanese out. The French were negotiating with both the Vietnamese and the Chinese at this point. The Chinese were trying to win concessions from the French also.
Things seem to be getting a little complicated now, don’t they?
ChadS
J
jeffrey_erwin
Guest
**France surrendered to and then allied itself to Germany. And as that an ally, France invited the Japanese Imperial Army into Indochina including Vietnam. From there Japan was able to launch successful attacks against British Malaya and Singapore. Eventually the Japs expelled the French from Vietnam.
Under the leadership of the Viet Minh, the Viets resisted the Japanese occupation. Ho Chi Minh himself returned a US pilot to the safety of a US base in China. OSS officer Archimedes Patti was able to negotiate a formal alliance between the USA and the Viet Minh against the armies of Imperial Japan. After the USA and her allies defeated Japan, the Vietnamese formed a government and declared independence. OSS officers were present in Hanoi and actually supplied a copy of the US Declaration of Independence, parts of which the Viets then transcribed to their own Declaration. The Viets were perfectly capable of governing their own country.
Truman’s first betrayal of our Viet Allies was to have the Chinese accept Japan’s formal surrender in Indochina. His second was his refusal to recognise the government of our Vietnamese allies. His third was to allow British and Chinese troops to unnecessarily enter Vietnam. His fourth was, as mentioned, to enable French colonial troops to return to Vietnam.
The USA’s betrayal of its Vietnamese alliance in favor of the foreign oppressor that had assisted the enemy isn’t all that complicated. It was just Harry Truman’s cold war politics as usual.**
C
ChadS
Guest
Actually the French Government in exile in London was the officially recognized government by the Allies. The same goes for Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, and probably a handful of other European nations at that time.
Don’t forget China was an ally of ours at that time and at that point China hadn’t been “lost” to the Communists yet. For being so simple this history seems incredibly complicated.
ChadS
J
jeffrey_erwin
Guest
**De Gaulle’s claim to political power in France was based solely on the fact that he and his military had allied themselves with England and the USA against the Axis.
And, after he and his French army helped defeat the Axis, he was not prevented from arresting the French government that had surrendered to Germany nor was he prevented rom forming a government independent of Germany.
Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh fought against Japan and were allied to the USA… So why did the allies refuse to recognise the Vietnamese government?
The French had been colonized by the Germans, and they didn’t like that.
But when the allies ended that occupation, the French immediately turned around and attempted to invade and colonize a sovereign country that did not want them there.**
The Versailles Treaty played a significant role in the rise of Hitler. I think one could make the case that we would have been better off staying out of WW I. Wilson was perhaps the worst president in American history, this is just one of the many reasons.
Jon
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Yes, one could make a case for your first two sentences, although the demonising of the Treaty can be overdone. Certainly Wilson was very unwise (and inconsistent) in pressing for Poland’s access to the sea, although there is little doubt that Hitler would have attacked Poland, Corridor or no Corridor. A case could also be made for suggesting that one cause of WWII was the refusal by Congress to ratify the Treaty and to support Wilson’s plans for collective security. And a case could be made for rejecting that suggestion. Complicated stuff, history. As to “worst president in American history” it’s your country and your call — I tend to think those sort of rankings don’t hold much water.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
And just to display how history depends on your point of view, I could make a case for the worst president being Madison.
C
ChadS
Guest
Yes, history is very complicated and rarely is it something simple, especially when talking about things on an international level and over 20 and 30 year periods.
I would never argue that Treaty of Versaille + 20 years = Hitler. Too much happened in not only Germany, but also France, Great Britain and elsewhere that affected events all across Europe.
You mention Hitler intent on attacking Poland, however it seems that if Britain and France put up more resistance when he remilitarized the Rhineland and also annexed the Sudetenland or split Czechoslovakia that things could’ve turned out differently. This isn’t to play what if, but to realize that Hitler and Germany weren’t the only actors in Europe.
ChadS
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Quite so, and we will never know how things would have turned out if appeasement had not been followed. It’s never easy to work out what Hitler’s real intentions were, although I would suggest that he seems fairly consistently over his period in power to be of the opinion that Germany needed conquests in the east.
I think historians are coming to think that the two views of Hitler — that (a) he was an opportunist just looking for weaknesses to exploit and (b) he had a definite plan for living space in the east — aren’t necessarily incapable of being reconciled.
The fumblings in British and French foreign policy are not particularly admirable, and that is often the case with the actions of liberal democracies: public opinion and political differences make bold foreign initiatives difficult (which is, on the whole, not a bad thing, as Iraq has shown).
As you say, the combination of all these factors makes history … somewhat complicated.
- Status