sad thoughts on poly posters

[chequita guevara]

Actually David, the only bombing that had any impact on the Germans was the bombing of the Polesti oil fields. Everything else was up and running in days, but once the oil stopped flowing, Germany stopped running. Soviet oil fields were well beyond the range of allied bombers.

In a hypothetical war between the two sides, the USSR would have rolled to the shores of the Atlantic. Either the USSR would have launched a surprise attack, for which the US would have been unprepared (we simply didn't have the manpower in Europe to face the Soviets then) or we would have had to build up. The latter would have hurt the war effort in Asia, and would have royally pissed off the folks back home, who wanted their men back and a return to normalcy. Either you get steamrolled by the Soviets or you face a homefromt revolt. Either way, US looses.

Eventually, the US could have pushed back the USSR, after dropping nukes on them, but it would have taken several years, and you wouldn't have the resistence movements like you had fighting the Nazis, since they were all lead by, and largely composed of, Communists.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually David, the only bombing that had any impact on the Germans was the bombing of the Polesti oil fields. Everything else was up and running in days, but once the oil stopped flowing, Germany stopped running. Soviet oil fields were well beyond the range of allied bombers.

Nope. Russian oil fields were well within range of B17s and B29s from the Middle East

Additionally, the USAF began to have a huge effect when they began going after choke points in German Production, such as ball bearing plants.

Although, the worst of it for the Reds would have been the carpet bombing of their large, cumbersome armoured forces.

I doubt the Russians could have moved without getting swacked. You can't attack when death lurks from above.

The interesting bit would have been the struggle for control of the skies. Once that was decided, the rest is all she wrote.

[chequita guevara]

According to the study the US did of it's bombing effectiveness after the war, they came to the conclusion that only the Polesti oil fields raids had any serious and lasting effect on the German war machine.

Also, it would have taken some time to move those bombers and their support crews from England and the Pacific to the ME, in which time it's highly likely the Soviets would have swept down through Persia and put an end to that idea.

The struggle for the skies would have taken a while. Soviet fighters and pilots were quite good. As long as they are still in the equation, the USSR rolls to the sea. Plus you'd have all those Commie guerillas messing up Allied logistics.

[notyoueither]

Commie guerillas? Way too far down the if road for me, sorry.

But I agree, the Red Air Force was no slouch in 1945. They had some excellent air craft. It would have been fascinating. Very sad, but fascinating.

[chequita guevara]

Commie guerillas, yes. Who do you think the French and Italian resistence were, let alone Greek, etc. It was almost all Commies (big C mostly, some little c, like me, and a handful of others). The Nazis were defeated in Northern Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia by Commie partisans. If Stalin hadn't told them all to disarm after the war, well, history may have been very different.

[notyoueither]

OK, I'll take this one step down the road of big if's.

Easy to understand the support the Resistance enjoyed in France while the German's were an occupier.

How much support do you think they would enjoy when the target was de Gaulle and Les Amis?

Not too mention the Resistance was not very consequential unless closely coordinated by the British.

[chequita guevara]

Remember that the Communists in Europe were very popular. They almost won the elections in Italy (the US had to do a massive propaganda campaign to stop it), were the most popular party in Greece, were exceedingly popular in France, etc.

Because of North American anti-communism we tend not to really understand how poular it was. It was only Stalin's ineptitude and self-interest that kept the Communists from coming to power through most of Europe even before WWII, and definately after.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually you crushed Hitler's war machine using a large degree of luck and a large amount of Western Lend Lease. There would be no way for you to actually crush the US, because you had no way to get to the US - in that respect the US enjoyed one of the ultimate advantages, in that the US itself would have been in no danger at any time.

Who is talking about invasion in US? I thought we were talking about kicking out Soviets from Eastern Europe.

Yeah, but armies tend to slow down when they run out of replacements. The Red Army in 1945 still relied far too much on human wave-type tactics to be successful in fighting an army such as that of the United States.

Human wave-type tactics?
An army such as that of the United States? [trows up]
What army? Sure you beleive in supremacy of Americans in general and in supremacy of American army in particular. [throws up again]
But what so great was in US army in 1945? Which great battles you have won in this war? How strong enemy forces you have defeated? How much damage you have done to your enemy in those battles? Which of your weapons were supreme? Why you beleive in superiority of US army in 1945 in compare with Red army?

Of course it was, no one disputes this. But between the two, the US Army had come far further in terms of improvement.

Sure, what a leap, from a pathetic 100 000 army and 500 tanks in 1941 to 2 millions army in 1945. And how exactly US army had come further in terms of improvment in compare with Red army if we leave numbers aside? Do you have better tanks? better artilery? better rifles? planes?

Fine, but that's all you produced - weaponry. You did NOT produce locomotives, motorized vehicles, tires, railway tracks, trucks, tractors and construction vehicles, boots, uniforms, or anything of the kind to any great degree, because the US gave you all you needed.

Do you really beleive that such country as Russia (the largest country on this planet btw) could be fully supplied by foreign country? Do you really think that we didn't produced locomotives, motorized vehicles, tires, railway tracks, trucks, tractors and construction vehicles, boots, uniforms, or anything of the kind and that America supllied as with those things in needed quanty? To supply fully supply us with all those things the cargo capacity of all ships on Earth wouldn't enough. And you want to convince me that such amount of cargo was delivered on less then 200 convoys?
You have no idea about amount of those things needed by our country, and no idea how much we produced by ourselves.

But even in spite of this, US production still outweighed Soviet production. As just one example, in 1944, the US produced 96,318 warplanes, as compared to 40,300 for the Soviet Union. In the first half of 1945, the US produced 49,761 warplanes, as opposed to 20,900 for the Soviets. This meant that at the end of the war, US production was still going up, while Soviet production was staying the same - it had already peaked.

In 1944 Soviets already gained air superiority. And there was no need to produce war planes in greater quanity. Do me a favor and show me the same statistic for 1942.

Actually I seriously doubt it. It tooks two and a half or three years for a larger Red Army than that to push back Hitler's forces, which had already lost the initiative and were beaten, in many respects, so what makes you think you could do any better against a victorious US Army, especially given that you had no possibility of significant replacements, to say nothing of new units?

1) In the beggining of war German army was larger then Red army.
2) Beaten by whom? And lost initiatiave because of whom?
3) An army wich concuqered Europe within year. An army which crushed (as somebody said here the most modern army of that time) French army within 40 days. An army which never saw a defeat before.
4) Victorious US Army
[throw up]
What a bullsh*t.
In compare with Hitler's army your army was an inocent, and unexpireinced weak child.

And who's to say that Russian civilians would have accepted millions more losses against THEIR former close allies? You may wave your flag and say that Russians don't care how many men die so long as they defeat their enemies, but we both know that's not true.

You just unable to understand this, because you are the product of absolutely different culture.
And btw, I recomend you to play a civ (any civ). If you don't know, there is such thing as war wearines. The democracy is the worse government system for war, communism is the best. Under communism there is no such thing as war wearines, and this not far away from true.

First tell me how you are going to take over every country in Europe. You can't, of course.

Only after you tell me how you are going to kicked Soviets out of Eastern Europe.

[notyoueither]

I believe that French Communists were popular in France, and Italian Communists in Italy. I'll even grant that there would have been a great deal of cross border comraderie.

I doubt though that many Italians or French would have gone with the Soviets in a hot war with the United States, France, Great Britain and the Commonwealth.

That brings up an interesting point though. Just how [practical] would such a war have been. If the Soviets started it, they would have been taking on the rest of the world, including disarmed Germans.

I don't see how the US could have started it. I can't see either their own people putting up with it, nor the British and French governments.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Yes! You should be ashamed of yourself for not arguing like everyone else!

Sorry!

[Serb]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't see how the US could have started it. I can't see either their own people putting up with it, nor the British and French governments.

And I don't see how the SU could have started it. We suffered enough during war with Germany and what we wanted- is to be sure that such disaster will never happen again.

[Lars-E]

Several pages back someone wrote that Americans have more freedoms and rights than other people. What freedoms and rights would that be? And do Americans have more freedoms and rights than Europeans?

[Ned]

All this discussion concerning a post WWII conflict with the SU raises one, very interesting point. Imagine you are an American soldier in Germany at the end of the war. A reporter asks you why was America fighting and what had America achieved?

The American pauses and considers. If the war was only to defeat Hitler, that objective was achieved. But that leads one back to the question of whether Hitler was ever a threat to America. He really wasn't, for many of the same reasons discussed here in connection with a post-WWII conflict with the SU.

Defeating Hitler, then, could be justified only on two grounds: Defense of our "Allies" who were under attack; or, that Hitler's Nazi regime was so fundamentally antithetical to American democracy that we could not co-exist in the same world.

However, England and France were not formal allies. Moreover, there was an abiding sense in the US that the cause of the war was the Versailles treaty imposed on Germany by England and France at the close of WWI. Thus to intervene on the side of these "allies" was improper.

The best conclusion is the most commonly accepted one: America was fighting Nazism - in order to save Democracy.

Thus the American soldier gives this answer. The reporter then asks about the Soviet Union. The American gives the pat answer, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But this illustrates that America's objective's were only partially achieved by the victory over Hitler. This incomplete resolution of the conflict lead to the Cold War.

In a sense, then, WWII only ended with the fall of Communism in the SU.

I see something very similar to the above with in the incomplete resolution of the Gulf War. We have entered into a prolong semi-hot war with Iraq that is about to be resolved one way or the other.

[David Floyd]

And you based this statement on which source?

Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of Great Nations.

Your turn.

Perhaps your doctrines were more superior then German? maybe Brit's? French doctrines? Our army showed much better performance then others. And don't start your bs, about weather, luck and superior in numbers. In 1941 German army was larger then Soviet.

Yes, in 1941 the Wehrmacht crushed the Red Army in every pitched battle, taking over 3 million prisoners. They were only stopped by the weather, and then pushed back by a combination of superior numbers and, more significantly, Hitler's idiotic meddling.

If yes, I will not countinue this talk anymore because it's useless. If no, then explain why do you constanly saying that you are 100% sure that USA could wipe the floor with Russia, because it could out produce Russia and it have greater population, and at the same time you deny that SU was able to wipe the floor with Germany alone, when SU out produced Germany and had much greater population then Germany? Isn't it is the same situation? Where is logic here?

You aren't understanding the fundamental differences in the situation. In 1945, Russian males of military age were mostly dead, unable to fight, in factories, or already in the Army - they had no replacements. Further, Soviet industry was not producing enough of the "behind the scenes" equipment necessary for fighting a war. As an example, Lend Lease provided 2408 locomotives to the SU, while the SU only produced 442. Thus, Lend Lease was responsible for almost 82% of all new Russian locomotives.

Do you have any idea how many trains needs such big country as Russia? Are you trying to say that Russian soldiers weared American uniforms? You have no idea HOW MUCH RESOURCES WE'VE SPENT IN THIS WAR. You think that less then 200 Lend-Lease convoys during those four years could supply SU with all nesessary trains, trucks, rails, uniforms, etc? Perhaps for you Lend-Lease looks significient, but in copmare with quantity of the same things produced by our own industry during this war it isn't.

Bullshit.
On the subject of rails, the US provided 93% of all new Russian rail lines.
Lend Lease provided 409,500 trucks to the SU, while the SU only produced 281,500.
Lend Lease accounted for 2,586,000 tons of aviation fuel, compared to Soviet production of only 1,810,000 tons.
Lend Lease provided 35% of all new Soviet explosives, and 30% of all tires (not to mention the fact that Britain sent the SU 103,500 tons of natural rubber, which was essential in producing tires).
Almost 50% of all coppor ore in the SU came from Lend Lease, which also provided 55.5% of all aluminum production.
Lend Lease "only" provided 28% of Soviet machine tools, but that 28% was far more versatile and complex, and thus more useful, than the ones produced domestically by the SU.

You exaggerate leand-lease. It was helpfull, very helpfull. When your house is under fire you will accept any possible help, and no one will deny any help. But it doesn't mean that we survived only because of lend-lease.

Actually, you are downplaying its importance, because all you seem to understand in war is numbers of soldiers and numbers of tanks.

Operation Torch?
Don't make me laugh. 100 000 German troops from North Africa couldn't bring any serious difference into Russian front.

It was more than 100,000 Germans. It was also 10 divisions invading Vichy France, plus over half a million men that had to be sent to Italy and the Balkans, which were threatened as a direct result of Torch.
In addition, over 400 German transport planes were diverted to Africa, which, if they had been used to supply 6th Army, could have doubled the amount of supplies it received, allowing it to hold out longer.

During 199 days of Stalingrad battle Germany and its allies lost more then 1 500 000 soldiers and officiers. The Red army lost 1 100 000 soldiers and officiers.

A large proportion of those were German allies, such as Romanians and Italians, which were pretty much worthless, and about 300,000 of that total refers to the 6th Army, much of which could have been saved.

Fine, if you could out produce SU, then for sure you could out produce Germany. THEN WHAT THE F*CK YOU WERE WAITING FOR? If you were so strong, so industrialised, so damn great warriors then it should be a peice of cake for you to crush Germany within a year since Germany declared war on you. Wtf you were waiting for 1944, while Germans were almost destroyed by Russians?

Don't be obtuse. You can't materialize men and material out of thin air, and planning an amphibious invasion of the continent of Europe takes just a bit of time, wouldn't you say? Further, peripheral action in the Mediterranean was of immense material assistance to the Soviet Union.

Yep, sure and how you suggest to deleiver greater quanties of heavy tanks on European theater?

In transports, obviously. The US merchant marine was still expanding at the end of the war, like every other part of US industrial production.

Numbers means nothing. But Red army was much better both in numbers and in quality of weaponry. And it was MUCH expirienced.

And most of it was dead, at least in terms of replacements. And the Red Army of 1945 was still much more of a big club than a sword - it could hammer away at something, but it had little precision.

And stop to portray it as we didn't have an air forces.
Your thousands of bombers would meat with thousands of Russian fighters.

I already showed you how the US was outproducing the SU in aircraft by over 2 to 1, and how this ratio was increasing.
Also, the main fighter of the Red Air Force, the Yak-9, was a great aircraft at low altitude, with superior turn rates to many Allied fighters. But the problem is that it performed very poorly at high altitudes, and a slow climbing rate, is relatively slow, relatively lightly armed, and has a short range. So it would not be a very good fighter for going after waves of B-29s (which weren't called Superfortresses for nothing - the Germans were terrified of having them transfered to Europe).

Who is talking about invasion in US? I thought we were talking about kicking out Soviets from Eastern Europe.

You said the SU could "crush" the US. This is obviously false, as the SU couldn't even get to the US.

Do you really beleive that such country as Russia (the largest country on this planet btw) could be fully supplied by foreign country? Do you really think that we didn't produced locomotives, motorized vehicles, tires, railway tracks, trucks, tractors and construction vehicles, boots, uniforms, or anything of the kind and that America supllied as with those things in needed quanty? To supply fully supply us with all those things the cargo capacity of all ships on Earth wouldn't enough. And you want to convince me that such amount of cargo was delivered on less then 200 convoys?
You have no idea about amount of those things needed by our country, and no idea how much we produced by ourselves.

I actually have a very good idea of this, as I showed you above.

In 1944 Soviets already gained air superiority. And there was no need to produce war planes in greater quanity. Do me a favor and show me the same statistic for 1942.

OK.
1942:
US air production: 47,386
SU production: 25,436

Almost two to one, even in 1942 while the US was still just getting warmed up.

In the beggining of war German army was larger then Red army.

So? And in 1941, the German Army crushed the Red Army in every battle.

An army wich concuqered Europe within year. An army which crushed (as somebody said here the most modern army of that time) French army within 40 days. An army which never saw a defeat before.

An army that properly utilized its armor - something that no other nation did at the time. The French Army was organized on hopelessly obsolete methods, as was every other army in 1940. This applies to the Soviet Union, as well - unless something else accounts for battles of annihilation such as Minsk, Vyazma, Kiev, etc.

In compare with Hitler's army your army was an inocent, and unexpireinced weak child.

Then explain why the Wehrmacht achieved a better kill/loss ratio (ratio, not numbers) against the Red Army than the US Army.

You just unable to understand this, because you are the product of absolutely different culture.

So the Russians of that time were much more susceptible to propaganda than Americans were, is that what you're saying? Not something to boast about
Also, maybe you should explain why the Germans were initially welcomed as liberators in areas they conquered (especially the Ukraine), if the Soviet people were so supportive of Stalin.

My theory is they were so supportive of Stalin because they'd be killed if they did anything different. Again, not something to boast about.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The American pauses and considers.

I think most American soldiers would have pointed to Bergen-Belsen and Dachau as the justification for their war on the Nazis. Hindsight is twenty-twenty. If you asked before those camps had been liberated, they would have said "Because they sneak-attacked us."

If you pick up a copy of Joe Mullin's (IIRC) cartoons, it seems rather clear that most American soldiers were pretty unhappy with being at war at the time. War memiors also show this. Obviously, few like being at war, even when the cause is just. Of course, hindsight changes ones views. My great-uncle talked about fighting in the jungles of Burma as if it was the greatest experience of his life, and I highly doubt he felt that way at the time.

Stalin wasn't the only dicator with whom we were allied. We were also allied with Chiang Kai-Shek (who was as bloody and brutal a bastards as the come). We were allied to imperialist powers, who may have been democracies at home, but were viciously dictatorial in their colonies. While Portugal wasn't an active ally, it did allow the Allies to use it's territory for naval and air bases, and it was a fascist dictatorship.

[Ned]

Che, I agree that most Americans today would and do justify the war against Hitler on the basis that his regime was barbaric and had to be terminated, citing the Holocost. But, prior to Pearl Harbor, I believe the majority of Americans did not want to get involved in the European war. True Hitler was a racist megalomanic. But Stalin was a butchering totalitarian. France had fallen, but France had declared war on Germany. England was holding its own, barely; but England too had declared war on Germany. Moreover, Germany had repeatedly indicated that it wanted to stop the war, but it was England that refused.

Trying to look at it solely from the knowledge of an American in 1941, it was not clear that we should intervene on the side of England and the SU. There was no real strong case, at that time, of this being a "just" war.

As to Chiang Kai-Shek, he may have been a brutal leader, but was he really a dictator? It was my impression that we viewed China as being a democratic country after Sun Yat-sen's overthrow of the Imperial goverment. Of course, since he waged war on Mao, Chiang may be viewed as a dictator to communists. Still, he had to have been democratically elected. (What is the history on this.)

If Chiang were as barbaric as you describe him, I fail to understand why we took sides with Chiang against Japan in the late 30's.

(Just to prove my point: Assume that Poland had negotiated a peaceful settlement with Hitler so that England and France do not declare war. Then Hitler invades Russia in 1941. Would we have intervened in that war on the side of Stalin? Of course not - the reason being that Stalin was viewed at the time as a brutal dictator, probably far more brutal than Hitler.)

[DarkCloud]

guess I was a bit rude yesterday. I'm sorry. Don't take it so hard.

Thank you. Apology accepted.
I was wrong on the Napoleon point.
I'll try to do thorough research before posting my memories of bygone historical readings Hopefully, after rereading the rest of this thread I'll rejoin again

[David Floyd]

I'll summarize - serb waves his flag, I quote hard numbers and statistics

Just kidding, it's an interesting thread, both sides make good points...

[GeneralTacticus]

As to Chiang Kai-Shek, he may have been a brutal leader, but was he really a dictator?

Yes.

It was my impression that we viewed China as being a democratic country after Sun Yat-sen's overthrow of the Imperial goverment.

Whether the US views a nation as democratic has absolutely nothing to do with whether it actually is.

Of course, since he waged war on Mao, Chiang may be viewed as a dictator to communists.

Not just to communists. His secret police also destroyed the Chinese Democratic Party, which the americans hoped might be able to provide a democratic government for China.

Still, he had to have been democratically elected. (What is the history on this.)

Chiang was never elected; he was given the Kuomintang dictatorship as Sun Yat-sen's successor.

[Ned]

GT, Now this is becoming really bizzare. If Chiang was a brutal dictator, why in the world did we support the SOB at all? This would be like supporting Hitler against England.

Were those movies, I believe, pre-WWII, showing the American Flying Tigers bravely helping the noble Chinese pure propaganda? (Of course, you will say yes.) Perhaps, then, it was Hollywood that got America into WWII?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
GT, Now this is becoming really bizzare. If Chiang was a brutal dictator, why in the world did we support the SOB at all? This would be like supporting Hitler against England.

Were those movies, I believe, pre-WWII, showing the American Flying Tigers bravely helping the noble Chinese pure propaganda? (Of course, you will say yes.) Perhaps, then, it was Hollywood that got America into WWII?

Well Stalin was worse than Chiang and he was a "good guy"

It was all done on the enemy of my enemy proinciple

[Q Classic]

If Chiang was a brutal dictator, why in the world did we support the SOB at all?

ned... america supported the marcos regime in the philippines. america supported the pak chung hee regime in skorea, then following that, the chun doo hwan and roh tae woo regimes.

small note: chun doo hwan was responsible for a brutal massacre of several thousand in the city of kwangju because they protested, wanting more democracy.

the us supported noriega in the beginning. and saddam before he turned on us. we supported the mujahideen against the soviets.

we were joyous when tito broke away from the warsaw pact. we loved some of those two-bit african dictators when they were on our side against communism. we liked pinochet for a brief period, when we were against communism.

enough examples?

ned, we've supported some real bastards in the past. chiang, if anything, was not as bad as most.

[Ned]

Of course, WHEN war breaks out, allying ones self to the devil may be understandable if that is what it takes to win the war. During the Cold War, we apparently were indifferent to the barbarities of leaders so long as they were on our side.

But, in the 1930s, if Japan was a constitutional monarchy and China was a dictatorship, I don't understand why we aligned ourselves with China against Japan.

I clearly understand that Japan was a direct threat against English, Dutch and French interests in China and SE Asia. But does that justify our attacking Japan? We were not then allies of any of these countries.

The more we talk about this the more "confusing" it gets.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
Of course, WHEN war breaks out, allying ones self to the devil may be understandable if that is what it takes to win the war. During the Cold War, we apparently were indifferent to the barbarities of leaders so long as they were on our side.

But, in the 1930s, if Japan was a constitutional monarchy and China was a dictatorship, I don't understand why we aligned ourselves with China against Japan.

I clearly understand that Japan was a direct threat against English, Dutch and French interests in Japan and SE Asia. But does that justify our attacking Japan? We were not then allies of any of these countries.

The more we talk about this the more "confusing" it gets.

Since when did the US start the war with Japan

[Ned]

The embargo, coupled with demands that Japan withdraw from China and Indochina, was an act of war.

The embargo was the final act in an increasing series of hostile acts by the United States.

[Q Classic]

But, in the 1930s, if Japan was a constitutional monarchy and China was a dictatorship, I don't understand why we aligned ourselves with China against Japan.

China wasn't so much a dictatorship as a military junta which wanted to be a democracy, but was too corrupt and under foreign attack to. that's why we allied ourselves with them. that Democracy word, buried in all of that other technicality stuff.

that, and nobody likes those dirty japs, so even chinks are better.

The embargo, coupled with demands that Japan withdraw from China and Indochina, was an act of war.

The embargo was the final act in an increasing series of hostile acts by the United States.

you could say everything the japanese did in asia in the early 20th as an act of war on every single asian people outside of japan...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
Of course, WHEN war breaks out, allying ones self to the devil may be understandable if that is what it takes to win the war. During the Cold War, we apparently were indifferent to the barbarities of leaders so long as they were on our side.

But, in the 1930s, if Japan was a constitutional monarchy and China was a dictatorship, I don't understand why we aligned ourselves with China against Japan.

I clearly understand that Japan was a direct threat against English, Dutch and French interests in China and SE Asia. But does that justify our attacking Japan? We were not then allies of any of these countries.

The more we talk about this the more "confusing" it gets.

You're right -- we should have just politely asked for an apology from Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor, and then just continue on, minding our own business.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

you could say everything the japanese did in asia in the early 20th as an act of war on every single asian people outside of japan...

Can anyone give me even one example of the Japanese threatening America during the 1930s?

And of course, in response to other posts about the "clarity" of evilness of the Japanese that justified our intervention into the Sino-Japanese war, Hirohito was clearly the eptome of evil - so much so that he continued to rule Japan with our consent 'til just recently.

[MrFun]

Ned, you never heard of Pearl Harbor??

THAT was when Japan attacked United States -- in 1941, not the 1930's.

[Q Classic]

Can anyone give me even one example of the Japanese threatening America during the 1930s?

threatening america? how about expansion? americans, hating the japs, thought that any increasing power from them should be met with suspcion and preemptive political maneuvering.
whether this is a valid reason or not, america did want to cement its power in the pacific, and japan did stand in that way, because they were trying to expand their own evil empire.

And of course, in response to other posts about the "clarity" of evilness of the Japanese that justified our intervention into the Sino-Japanese war, Hirohito was clearly the eptome of evil - so much so that he continued to rule Japan with our consent 'til just recently.

ned, don't try and whitewash what the japanese did. or what the allies accepted to pacify the japanese. hirohito was probably just as aware of the scope of the atrocities as tojo-- but since he wasn't the one calling the shots, so to speak, he could hide behind a curtain of plausible deniability.

no, japan was evil. if not for pearl harbot, than for everything they did in korea, in taiwan, in manchuria.