WMD in WWII?

Question

Would Germany have been justified in invading the United States in World War II, as long as they used the excuse that the United States was 'building weapons of mass destruction'?

Answer 1

Well the person who said 'possessing or trying to possess wmd is not the problem' should consider that statement carefully because of the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima etc, they were used on civilian populations (not even cities know for heavy military traffic) in a war that was coming to an end anyway, but was just proving too expensive.

George Bush is a war monger-er who's main aim is to have glory for his name down the annals of history and what ever temporary political power he can grab, there where no WMD's in Iraq at the time of the invasion, and it appears that Sadam had complied with all the UN requirements (tho' this was hard to prove at the time) this makes Bush a war criminal (not that he will ever stand trial for it ^-^) An excuse was made to invade to bring glory to Bush and to consolidate the US position in the middle east and quite possibly distract us away from his miserable home policies. (only this latter one seems to have had any success).

A much better and more honest plan would have been to go in with the statement that Sadam needed removing, just for who he was, at least that would have been justifiable in the eyes of the western world (if not international law)

Since Afghanistan and Iraq, Muslim attention has been 'clearly' focused on the west, and even Muslims who were quite happy living in the west now look upon us with distrust and even hatred. Well done George, we have you to thank for most of the terror we see to day. (the proverbial hornets nest)

Answer 2

Prior to the US entering WWII, Hitler needed no such excuse to invade anyone. His intentions (clearly stated to his people) was to gain territory and resources to promote his agenda of Leibenstraum. An economicly expanding Germany is a good thing for its own sake.

Please note, that he did not invade any but adjoining states. He didn't begin by hopping over oceans.

Once the US entered the war, Hitler certainly might have invaded, for nothing more than we were his enemy. He certainly tried, but by the time he developed the capability to carry out the act, the war was over.

The politics of WWII were very much different than those of the current conflict. The "WMD" statement in nonsense when applied to that time.

Here's a theoretical question. If Hitler's Germany remained relatively peaceful, while quietly developing a nuclear capability, would the US have been justified in invading?

Answer 3

If Germany's hard water experiment in Norway hadn't of been destroyed its a possibility they could of had the first nuclear bomb.
What Countries Make It?
When Norsk Hydro began producing heavy water in 1934, Norway became the first country with a commercial heavy-water plant. The Nazi invasion of Norway in 1940 transferred control of the plant—and most of the world's heavy water—to Germany. In the early 1940s, Allied countries joined the race for heavy water, and by 1944, the Manhattan Project had made 20 tons of the precious liquid, more than enough to fill the first heavy-water nuclear reactor.

Answer 4

Well now, I’d have to say yes. Particularly since there were Canadians in England attacking Germany, and the US had used biological weapons on their own people, (Smallpox on the Sioux), and even invaded their neighbor to the south.

Answer 5

possessing or trying to possess wmd is not the problem. the willingness to use them in an offensive capacity as a first strike weapon is. Iraq had and used wmd in such a capacity. the american use of the bomb to end wwii was a merciful act. if not used, millions more would have died.

Answer 6

In their opinion, sure, but since Germany had weapons of mass desctruction also, we could use the same excuse.

Answer 7

what would you call 10000000 people with suicide bombs and who are encouraged to use them
are they wmd's