For people who feel that war is not necessary,how would you have handled WWII?

Question

Just sit and watch the pretty bombs as Japan attacked us?Really I want to hear how you would have handled it.

I made no mention of Iraq and I am not talking about Iraq,I am saying to the people who believe war is not necessary how to go about defending oneself.Real simple here folks.

Answer 1

What would have been worse was that Japan would have secured the resources it needed in the Pacific to really wage war against the US. Pearl Harbor was done to cripple the US in the Pacific so that Japan can invade and take over what they needed to maintain their war machine.

Also, lets not forget Hitler. If the US had not entered the war, Germany would have taken England and would have had a pretty strong hold on Europe. There is nothing short of war that could have stopped him. Sanctions would not have worked because Germany was very industrial and could produce just about anything it needed. If they needed it and could not make it, they would just invade whomever had it. Diplomacy would not have worked because Hitler had a grand plan and you would not have been able to talk him out of it.

Answer 2

WWII is of course is one of the most difficult test cases against war. The mistakes made were done at least 10 years BEFORE 12-7-41. There was a LOT of profiteering by people in the USA and all over the world that allowed the military buildup of Germany and Japan. The Versallis Treaty ending the First was riddled with flaws and greed such that the incentive for Germany was to seek war again and not seek a rebuilding in peace.

Answer 3

A liberal would say we should have "tolerated" the Japanese's decision to attack us, that it is racist to attack them, because we can only have war with other white Christian nations, and that we should sell our weapons for PETA t shirts and tofu. I actually saw on a bumper sticker today coming home from work that said "Wont it be a great day when our schools have books and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to afford a bomber?" This person actually believes all military is bad, and I was shocked, and somewhat awed lol.

Anyway, we were right to attack them back in WWII, and I have no problem with the wars today, just the way they are being handled. I know you weren't talking about Iraq or Afghanistan, but forgive me if I do

Answer 4

FDR didn't make an attack more likely... The American people did! Pre-WWII Americans were very isolationist and very much against the idea of engaging in foreign wars. Even WWI took quite a lot for US to enter. Japan gambled that Americans would remain this way...

I'm a pragmatic pacifist... Meaning I believe force/violence is always evil. However, force as a final means of self defense is simply a necessary evil to use against others who fail to refrain from the use of violent force. And I believe that when it gets to that point, the enemy must be destroyed. war is War is WAR! Nothing pretty or moral about it.

But, when possible, negotiations and diplomacy that prevent/postpone violence is always the best course... while maintaining the best possible military!
As Theodore Roosevelt said... "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

Answer 5

the US sat back and watched the east get taken over mainly because we didnt want to have anything to do with it. we were nieive and were trying to prevent another world war. I dont like how the US handled it but it was o ur last resort and would have done the same thing if i needed to.

Answer 6

Nobody believes that war is not necessary. The point is that it is not desirable. And any veteran will tell you this.

Never met one who enjoyed going to war who wasn't a psychopath.

As for WWII, if I was a German, I never would have supported my country/army aggressively invading and occupying other countries without them having attacked first..

Of course many of todays conservatives would simply have backed Hitler and the wehrmacht/troops out of their sense of blind patriotism. Gotta support the troops, no matter what right?

Answer 7

Not a very good comparison, Japan and Germany attacked and declared war on the USA. Iraq did nothing of the sort.

Answer 8

I would've voted for a president who wouldn't have done everything in his power to make an attack more likely, like FDR did.

As far as Hiroshima, most people are too stupid to realize that there was already a peace offer on the table in July 1945. The Japanese wanted an assurance that we wouldn't hang the Emperor. We didn't hang the Emperor anyway, but just to clarify that we could if we wanted, we killed an extra 120,000 people. To defend that on humanitarian grounds is worse than a joke.

Answer 9

I can't think of anything off hand that I would have done differently than what was done by the U.S. government after our country was attacked by Japan.
I doubt that this is news to you, but maybe I am wrong------the big difference between the two wars is that Japan ATTACKED the U.S.
Iraq obviously did NOT attack the U.S., so your comparison is pretty weak.

Answer 10

Pacifism only works if there are no belligerent goons on any particular side. But, well, human nature will ensure that some warmongering stooge will always come and cause an unecessary ruckus.