History....

[Kelsie]

Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland.
Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.
Sept 5, 1939 - United States proclaims neutrality
Sept 10, 1939 - Canada declares war on Germany; Battle of the Atlantic begins.
May 10, 1940 - Nazis invade France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Winston Churchill
becomes British Prime Minister.
May 15, 1940 - Holland surrenders to the Nazis.
May 28, 1940 - Belgium surrenders to the Nazis.
June 3, 1940 - Germans bomb Paris
June 10, 1940 - Norway surrenders to the Nazis; Italy declares war on Britain and France
June 14, 1940 - Germans enter Paris.
July 10, 1940 - Battle of Britain begins
Aug 23/24 - First German air raids on Central London.
Sept 15, 1940 - Massive German air raids on London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool and
Manchester.
Oct 7, 1940 - German troops enter Romania
Oct 28, 1940 - Italy invades Greece.
April 6, 1941 - Nazis invade Greece and Yugoslavia
April 17, 1941 - Yugoslavia surrenders to the Nazis.
April 27, 1941 - Greece surrenders to the Nazis.
June 14, 1941 - United States freezes German and Italian assets in America
Aug 1, 1941 - United States announces an oil embargo against aggressor states
Dec 7, 1941 - Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor
Dec 8, 1941 - United States and Britain declare war on Japan
Dec 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the United States
Jan 26, 1942 - First American forces arrive in Great Britain.

I find this timeline VERY interesting. United States proclaims neutrality 5 days after Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany. Canada proclaims war on Germany 5 days later.

Why did it take a direct attack on us to bring us into WW2? I also find it interesting that even though they were fighting the war in Europe, Great Britain declared war on Japan one day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and it took us 2 ½ years to arrive in Britain???

Here is an extract from the speech which was
broadcast to the American people on 3
September, 1939.



My countrymen and my friends, tonight my
single duty is to speak to the whole of
America. Until 4.30 o'clock this morning I had
hoped against hope that some miracle would
prevent a devastating war in Europe and bring
to an end the invasion of Poland by Germany.

For four long years a succession of actual war
and constant crises have shaken the entire
world and threatened in each case to bring on
the gigantic conflict which is today unhappily a
fact.

It is right that I should recall to your minds the
consistent and at times successful efforts of
your government in these crises to the throw
the full weight of the United States
Government into the cause of peace...

It is right to point out that the unfortunate
events of recent years have, without question,
been based on the use of force or the threat
of force.

And it seems to me clear, even at the
outbreak of this great war, that the influence
of America should be consistent in seeking for
humanity a final peace that will eliminate as far
as it is possible to do so the continued use of
force between nations...

You the people of this country are receiving
news through your radios and your newspapers
at every hour of the day. You are I believe the
most enlightened and the best informed people
in all the world at this moment. You are
subjected to no censorship of news and I want
to add that your government has no
information which it withholds or which it has
any thought of withholding from you.

You must master at the outset a simple but
unalterable fact... When peace has been
broken anywhere the peace of all countries
everywhere is in danger. It is easy for you and
for me to shrug our shoulders and say that
conflicts taking place thousands of miles from
the continent of the US and indeed thousands
of miles from the whole American hemisphere
do not seriously affect the Americas and that
all the United States had to do is ignore them
and go about its own business.

Passionately though we may desire
detachment we are forced to realise that
every word that come through the air, every
ship that sails the sea, every battle that is
fought, does affect the American future.

Let no man or woman thoughtlessly or falsely
talk of America sending its armies to European
fields. At this moment there is being prepared
a proclamation of American neutrality...

This nation will remain a neutral nation. But I
cannot ask that every American remain neutral
in thought as well.

Even a neutral has a right to take account of
facts. Even a neutral cannot be asked to close
his mind or close his conscience. I have said
not once, but many times that I have seen
war and that I hate war.

I say that again and again. I hope the US will
keep out of this war. I believe that it will and I
give you assurance and reassurance that
every effort of your government will be
directed toward that end.

As long as it remains within my power to
prevent there will be no blackout of peace in
the United States.

I just think we need to step back and take a deep breath before we judge

 

[Mermaid02]

Taking a deep breath and saying..... We learned our lesson

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

the world was a different place in 1939. we didn't think we'd be involved in a war that didn't affect our shores. Canada was involved because of its membership in the British commonwealth. Britain declared war on Japan because of its colonies in the Far East. we didn't have any "colonies" in Europe.


and you are forgetting to mention lend-lease -- the "neutral" not being very neutral after all.

 

[Kelsie]

OK, you're correct. Let's mention the "lend-lease' that was signed on March 11, 1941. A year and a half after the war began.

Yes, it is a different world but it was also a different world in 1917 when we DID feel we needed be involved in a war that didn't directly affect our shores.

My intention is not to debate the validity of this war, nor do I wish to even share with you my personal views. I do think it's only fair that we understand history when some are so quick to judge.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

we entered WW! ostensibly because of attacks on American neutrals on the high seas.


here's some hisotry that scares me:McCarthyism

 

[MJames41]

Kelsie,

I agree 100% with Briar Rose. It was a very different time then, both in 1917 and 1939. In 1917, we finally went in after 2 years of deliberation, including Germany attempting to coerce Mexico into attacking us to keep us out of Europe.

In 1939, some of the most respected names in America were for isolationism/peace, including Charles Lindburgh (sp?), at the time the greatest hero the country had. We were not considered a super power, isolationism had been our theme for our entire country's life.

Things have changed now. We have been attacked on our soil and thousands have died - twice. Countries now have the capability to attack us with one person, no longer do they need entire armies (for those that don't think so, imagine SARS as a biological agent - it came to our continent by one person at first).

In it's best light, we could probably look at President Clinton's foreign policy as "Isolationism light". He would send in just enough forces to make a statement, even though most of the time when force was called for it wasn't enough. We ignored attacks on Americans overseas, attacks on American embassys, attacks on American Naval ships. This is what led us to 9/11. (Ok, I don't think he ignored them, but he didn't do enough to strike back - which, to our enmies translated into that we were to weak to fight back). It's a different world we live in unfortunately.

 

[JimB.]

Post WW1, The US was an extremely isolationist nation, weak in both foreign and military power, and saddled with the great depression.

Not a GOOD reason, mind you, but a reason.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by Briar Rose 7457
here's some hisotry that scares me:McCarthyism

On this we can agree all day and all night.

 

[Kelsie]

I do agree with most of your points. However, those Countries that don't have a particular disagreement with Iraq or disagree with our position, likewise have the choice to choose "isolationism'. Correct?

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by Kelsie
I do agree with most of your points. However, those Countries that don't have a particular disagreement with Iraq or disagree with our position, likewise have the choice to choose "isolationism'. Correct?

Correct. However, if you are talking about France, they are attempting to "isolate" and be a world leader at the same time. If they were truly attempting "isolationism", they would have, at worst, given a no vote on a 2nd resolution. Their decision to veto any 2nd resolution that involved force was not isolationism, but setting themselves up as against the US/Great Britain coalition.

 

[Kelsie]

Again, I agree with most of your points but, since we can't know for sure that we had the 9 votes required from the Security Council to pass it in the first place, all we can do is assume France wouldn't have had to veto it as promised.

I wasn't specifically referring to France, but rather any nation that dares to disagree with us.

Does the status of 'Ally' of the United States require blind obedience? If so, we need to redefine sovereign nations.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

thank you james, I'd forgotten about the Zimmerman letter and the Mexican connection.


the problem with your theory, kelsie, is that since the end of WWII we've lived in a global society. wars are no longer isolated events, a war in the middle east affects everyone.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Kelsie
Again, I agree with most of your points but, since we can't know for sure that we had the 9 votes required from the Security Council to pass it in the first place, all we can do is assume France wouldn't have had to veto it as promised.

I wasn't specifically referring to France, but rather any nation that dares to disagree with us.

Does the status of 'Ally' of the United States require blind obedience? If so, we need to redefine sovereign nations.

Kelsie, I'm sure you are already aware of this, but France not only promised a veto, they agressively tried to line up other SC nations against us.

And during the protracted negotiations for 1441, Colin Powell says he asked de Villepin directly "If you vote for this, you won't veto another one down the line, right? And de Villepin looked him in the eye and said "we won't".

That's not isolationism. They mounted a concerted effort to oppose us at the U.N!!

I think that's the main reason that so many are outraged at the behavior of the French government, while they tend not to be as upset with Germany and Russia.

 

[Kelsie]

Originally posted by Briar Rose 7457
the problem with your theory, kelsie, is that since the end of WWII we've lived in a global society. wars are no longer isolated events, a war in the middle east affects everyone.

Not really looking for you to analize my "theory" I am asking questions, nothing more. You do not know my views on the war and this post is not about that. It IS about why we expect our allies to stick by us even when they don't agree and would we or have we done the same in for them in the past. The answer always seems to be, this is not like the past, it's a different time, we are different.

My question to MJames was "Does the status of 'Ally' of the United States require blind obedience?" Maybe "require" is not the right word, more like 'expect'. It is an un-written expectation? I am not just referring to France (although we seem to keep going back to it), I am mostly thinking about Canada at this point.

If you would like give me your opinion on that question, I would be more than happy to listen

 

[Kelsie]

Originally posted by bsnyder
That's not isolationism. They mounted a concerted effort to oppose us at the U.N!

Yes, they did mount a concerted effort but Bet, do you mean to tell me that if the US felt strongly about an issue, they wouldn't do the same?

Believe me, I am not supporting France (although I'm not giving up my L'Oreal ), but they do have the right to disagree with us or at least I hope they still do.

 

[bsnyder]

Kelsie, I'm really having a hard time imagining a situation where we would stab one of our long time allies in the back like this.

I use those words because that's how I truly feel, but it's not directed at any individual, it's directed at the leaders of France who have refused to lead.

I'm also not belittling their right to feel strongly about avoiding the horrors of war. That's a noble goal.

Chirac had no obligation to support U.S. policy. But to sabotage it and the coalition we built around it is indefensible.

In this case, too much of the evidence points to the fact that their position is much more about purely selfish interests such as their desire to check our position as a hyperpower and their financial interests in seeing Saddam's regime survive.

Those who believe the United States went to war against Iraq inspired by oil are looking in the wrong direction. They should be looking at Paris. France remains Iraq's biggest European trading partner. And French interests have signed with Iraq drilling contracts worth as much as $50 billion. The contracts are so lopsidedly favorable to the French firms that no successor regime to Saddam will be able to respect them.

Measure Chirac's behavior against that of Tony Blair's. He put his premiership on the line and held fast to the alliance. His leadership has now produced a British majority in favor of the war.

 

[Kelsie]

Again, I agree with you regarding France. What I do find interesting is that we seem so surprised by this. France has always treated the US like they are a 3 year old in a 95 year olds house.

 

[bsnyder]

I know, I know. *Big sigh*

But in spite of that fact, the way events have unfolded, I've still been disillusioned at the magnitude of the back-stabbing.

Senator McCain was talking about what I mentioned in my earlier thread, about de Villepin clearly bargaining in bad faith on the passage of 1441. He said he didn't consider himself or Sec. of State Powell to be naive when it comes to the intricacies of diplomacy but that they were both shocked by what the French foreign minister did.

 

[MJames41]

I don't expect our ally's to go along with us each time. Canada, for instance, is sitting this one out. I've got no problem with that, and I consider them as strong an ally as Great Britain. However, Canada has not attempted to subjegate other countries with blackmail like France has (telling countries wanting to join the EU that if they support the US in any way they will be kept out). That is not an ally. As you pointed out, France does like to look down on us.