World War II

(And since we're on the topic - I'm not terribly patriotic either, given our current situation. :P)

Yeah, I'm even one of those people who finds legitimacy in the arguments of people who question whether the American Revolution was right.... But that's an argument for another time. =P

Indeed. :D

Me, too. We need to have threads for whether or not the American Revolution and Civil War were right.

We've already had lots of controversy about the Civil War… :P

Maybe I should have told y'all before I got into this discussion that I am somewhat unpatriotic. It's not that I don't _like_ America, it's just that I think patriotism is been emphasized way too much in America; almost to the extent that we worship George Washington and the American flag (but please don't get me wrong, I think we should respect out leaders, just not worship them). I am not a permanent citizen of America. "But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."

Same here :) I don't like the decisions being made (especially in CA), but I have to remember that our leaders are appointed by God.

YES. Another key consideration that many people don't like to acknowledge. It's like, if a governing authority is evil and/or is implementing questionable policies, people suddenly stop believing that God has appointed them and that He is still in complete control..

Me, too. We need to have threads for whether or not the American Revolution and Civil War were right.

Ooo, the Civil War, wow. XD I know there are lots of conspiracy theories about that one as well. Lots of dirt about Lincoln that no one really knows about, I've heard.

Yeah… sometimes I wish that the losers got to write history - even in times when I think the winning party was in the right. :)

Oooooo. Recently really been getting interested about Lincoln. And yeah, let's just say… well, nevermind. There is a thread already made about it, you know. ;)

Then we definitely need to start a thread on it! I'm not sure what I think. I have quite a few ancestors who were for the Confederacy and were Christians (for example, Isaac Handy – you can Google him if you don't know who he is).

Oooooo. Recently really been getting interested about Lincoln. And yeah, let's just say... well, nevermind. There is a thread already made about it, you know. ;)

I did not know. =o Where is said thread? And is it active?

It isn't active. And I shall find it. Hang on. =p

Thank you muchly. :D

Just brought it back up. ;)

Me, too. We need to have threads for whether or not the American Revolution and Civil War were right.

Ooo, the Civil War, wow. XD I know there are lots of conspiracy theories about that one as well. Lots of dirt about Lincoln that no one really knows about, I've heard.

Yes, my brother George and I really enjoy discussing him. He sort of used the Emancipation Proclamation to turn it into a moral war. I think he intended for the slaves to be freed eventually, he just sort of took advantage of the American people by using the freeing of slaves to get more on his side. I hope I'm not being too off-topic!

I definitely agree. But maybe we should move this discussion to the newly-resurrected Civil War thread. :)

OK. But I better not start discussing over there today, since I've already been on here a long time, so I need to go do some stuff before too long.

But maybe you're right. We should have invaded Japan with Operation Downfall, and trusted God that we were doing the right thing. Who knows? Maybe he would have sent down fire from above upon the Japanese, so that they would surrender. Hmm…

The interesting thing about that is that Esther Ann Kim in 'If I Perish' prophesied to the Japanese that if they didn't stop persecuting the Christians, fire and sulfur from heaven would fall on them.

But maybe you're right. We should have invaded Japan with Operation Downfall, and trusted God that we were doing the right thing. Who knows? Maybe he would have sent down fire from above upon the Japanese, so that they would surrender. Hmm…

The interesting thing about that is that Esther Ann Kim in 'If I Perish' prophesied to the Japanese that if they didn't stop persecuting the Christians, fire and sulfur from heaven would fall on them.

That's great…. except an atomic bomb isn't really fire and sulfur falling from heaven. =P As much as I'm against the idea of coincidences, I would venture to say that this was a pure coincidence under the governance of Providence. =P

I won't make this a big post, as I have school to do, but regarding the atomic bomb, the U.S. had more or less five options in 1945 (feel free to add to this list if you think it necessary):

1. It could simply back off. Japan was "taught" its lesson, so to speak. We could have stopped fighting and that might have saved a lot of lives. The problem is that this is not how war works. The Japanese were still fighting us. They were still killing people in China and the Pacific (and torturing our soldiers) and if we were to give them breathing room without bringing them into submission, they would have slowly built up their military and launched again into the attack. This solution would be foolish for any government to pursue.

Plus, Russia was planning to invade Japan at the same time. They wanted to be the country that established a new government in Tokyo, a Communist/USSR-leaning government. It is not as though our backing off would have made a difference. An invasion would have taken place. The question was whether we should allow millions of the Japanese to die in the process for the creation of a Communist government, allow them to die for a U.S. leaning government, or drop a bomb that would cut the losses to an estimated 20% and save more civilians than would probably have died in an invasion.

1. America could have sort-of kind-of backed off, trying to keep Japan contained but not actually launching a bomb. This would have kept their factories in place, however, causing us to continually lose American lives at the hands of angered fighters. Japanese culture is exceptionally opposed to surrender. The prospects would have to be certain annihilation upon refusal, without chance to fight back, for the government to bow its head. As a result, this and the above option would fail. Anything short of some kind of military operation would not have ended in peace.

2. We could invade Japan before/in coordination with Russia. As was said before, it was estimated that millions of Japanese would die in the invasion. Historically speaking, when generals make estimates of this kind, they almost always underestimate the casualty count. What they estimated was probably on the low end of probability for operation Downfall (AKA Operation Olympic Torch). Not only that, it would have taken a very long time to take Japan down. The country is remarkably defensible, and the civilians were, according to their cultural custom, prepared to die for their homes. There would have been no major groups of civilians surrendering. Millions would have died. Now, the question to ask is whether this is worth the risk? Probably not. At least, we should try to look for a more viable option.

3. We could bomb only the military factories, bases, and ports. This seems to be a more viable option. Don't aim for civilian-filled towns; just go for the factories. The problem is that it is hard to have such precise aim when the factories are right next to houses. Also, to aim correctly, the planes need to be incredibly low to the ground, putting them against Anti-Aircraft fire. You would lose a lot of pilots. In addition, this option would take a lot of time to implement. People in China and the Pacific will still be dying, and there is no evidence to suggest that Japan would have surrendered at this tactic. Still, I personally believe it is better than an invasion.

4. We could drop a new weapon, the atomic bomb. I won't venture to say whether it is better than option 4, but this is certainly better than the other options. If the Japanese could not even fight back against the bomb, dropped from too high up to fight back, there would be no point in being courageous or honorable. Surrender, with this weapon, became an option they would actually consider. With regards to casualties, it was far less destructive than Options 1, 2, and 3 would have been. The real question, in my opinion, comes when we consider civilians. Was it acceptable to drop knowing that civilians were in those cities? This is a question faced during all bombing missions. There is always the chance, even the high probability, that civilians will die. Some things, though, you have to do in order to end the war. This then brings up the whole "end justifies means" question. You cannot claim that the ends never justify the means unless you are a complete pacifist. Inherent in every war is the idea that there is something worth fighting for. There is no escaping an answer to that question in war. Whatever of the above options you choose, you claim that the ends justify the means (in Option 1, for instance, you are saying that allowing thousands in China and millions to die in Russian invasion to die is worth the chance of peace/the lack of American culpability). In my opinion, as long as the allies were not intentionally saying, "let's kill civilians because we can" (which, in my opinion, they didn't), I think that dropping the atomic bomb was a viable option. Whether it was the best one, I can't say, but it was certainly better than most of the alternatives.

Haha, I guess that was a longish post. Sorry about that. I should go do school now. :P

I hadn't heard that before.

EDIT- I'm leaving now, so don't expect me to answer any questions.

I agree with you there, Christian. :)
Maybe you should read the first paragraph of my post, the one that wasn't sarcastic.

EDIT: I heartily agree with Jimmy.

I did read it. My post was in response to the response to your post that I quoted… So I'm not sure if there's a misunderstanding about my post or if you're just saying I would do well in general to read what you said. xP

Yeah…… Jimmy's sorta starting to win me over to his side.

hides from Bethany while eagerly awaiting her response

Apparently we're both confused, then. Oh well, it doesn't really matter. :P
Go Jimmy!

WHAT? What do you need to hide from me for? goes to read the conversation

So, just curious, did you change your opinion? ;) Because on the third page of this topic, it sounded like you agreed with me, when I mentioned I didn't think it should be dropped? It's totally fine if you did, I was just always under the impression you thought it was wrong. =)

Also, about the whole topic, I don't feel like I should speak more on the atomic bomb until I read more about why the Japanese wouldn't quite fighting. I don't want to jump to strong conclusions before I fully study it out, though I would say my tendency would be to say it was wrong, because so many innocent people died. But your post was very thought-provoking. So thanks for writing it out.

You might want to look up bushidō (the way of the warrior) as part of your research. Learning Japanese words will always gain you a few points with Sam, anyway. :)

My opinion has grown a tad bit more open to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Still, I agree with you in that I am not sure it was the best, wisest decision. Something in me still grates against dropping such a powerful bomb on so many people. But as I said in my post, it does seem like, if not the best, at least a viable option for ending the war. I am trying to think of options to add to the list on my page. Hopefully, that and a little research might lead to finding a better option than invasion or the Atomic bomb.

*In reply to your comment several pages back, @jimmy.

You said in your second paragraph - "FDR never could have known about Pearl Harbor Day (at least, that is my historical input from my research), and as a result I conclude that his promise was made before the pertinent facts were on the table; when they became on the table, that opinion changed, whether we deserved or provoked the Hawaii attack or no." And I would say in response to this - FDR did know about the attack on Pearl Harbor and was completely in on the plan to incite Japan to attack us. McCollum, one of FDR's friends on the political level, had an 8 point plan on ways to incite Japan. And, just to put it this way - it's pretty annoying to read how he wrote that plan and who he, along with FDR, so carefully played it out, and how successful it was. Kimmel, one of the leader commanders on Pearl Harbor at time of the attack, was debased to a 2 star admiral after the fact was over, even though evidence shows that he tried to figure out what was going on, and basically was ignored by the government during the time leading up to the attack. It's a sad story.

And basically, we'd have a fundamental disagreement, because I do think that America joining the war just added to the bloodshed. I'd could post lots of reasons why, though I don't have time at the moment. If you ever have the time in your busy schedule to read the book I've mentioned, I'd really enjoy hearing your feedback on it.

As to your other points you've mentioned, I haven't studied up on WW2 in the past month, so I'm a little rusty on some of it, as I've studied parts more than other. But, I really appreciate you taking the time to write your thoughts out in the fashion you do. I always enjoy hearing your comments on a topic, and how you order them in a very kind and respectful way. Very thought-provoking. ;) And I'll try to get back with you sometime soon on the rest of your comment. =)

Another reason against option 4 is that we would have ended up fighting the citizens in the streets anyway.
the Japaneses had a strong mentality of never surrendering so that the ancestors would be proud. Even after the Atomic bomb was dropped most would have kept fighting.

Edit: In a way they were all guilty of being the military, they just hadn't gotten the opportunity kill any foreigners.
anyway I'm glad they'er friends now.

Thanks, Bethany! I always enjoy hearing your comments too. :)

Regarding McCollum: Hmmm… I suppose I have never heard about that exact incident. I would consider myself fact-checked, but as this is such an important point and I have never heard about it, I would like to read bit more about it from both sides of academia. Do you know any easily accessible sources that talk about it? If not, I can try to find some myself. This is really interesting. :)

Regarding America joining the war: Yeah, I suppose we just have different thoughts on this issue. :) That is fine, though, as it is always good to hear the other side and have fun hashing ideas out, especially when it comes to history.

I will also try to do some research, not necessarily for the debate on this thread, but just to learn some more about this really interesting time period and make sure that I am not missing important things.

Just thought of something. I have mentioned the book by Richard Maybury as one being you might all enjoy reading, just to gain more of the perspective that I'm coming from. But, I do want to mention that I wouldn't fully agree with the book. As I pick up from the book that he definitely isn't an atheist, but believes in a Higher One (he never comes out and mentions God, yet strongly implies it), he has an underlying principle which I would disagree with. He makes the point that the reason that we have war and problems such to that, is that people violate 2 of the "strongest" laws - 1) Do all you have agreed to do. 2) Don't encroach on other persons or their property.

I actually started writing a paper on my view of the premise of his books regarding that, but sadly lost it. And though I strongly like his books, he takes some points overboard on the 2 laws. Just thought I'd mention that quickly, before any of you decide to read them - if you ever do. ;)

Well, World War 2: The rest of the story and how it affects you today by Richard Maybury definitely speaks on the topic. Day of Deceit: The Truth about Pearl Harbor and FDR by Robert Stinnett is covering the whole topic. Also, a bigger book on the topic is And I was There: Pearl Harbor and Midway - Breaking the Secrets by Edwin Layton. I have more, for sure, I just can't think of titles at the moment. ;)

This is basically what got me really intrigued on the topic of WW2 because I had never heard of such a thing. And before I came to believe what I do regarding Pearl Harbor, I definitely had the same thought - why isn't it more known? And I think the answer to that question is that it kinda puts FDR in a bad light, along with the USG, so why have American textbooks add a lot of that stuff? But, this is definitely not hidden things, and once you start researching it, you might be surprised at how much stuff is out there on the topic of Pearl Harbor and how we incited Japan to attack us.

I see a lot of talking, but I'm too sick to read it all. I even have the time to. :(

Did we agree that dropping boom-booms to stop bigger boom-booms down the line was a good thing?

Sorry you aren't feeling well, Sam. =/

Well, we're kinda split. Most of them, I pick up, think it's more okay. I don't think it's okay. And Jimmy is still deciding. =) Well, I guess you could say I'm still deciding, though I strongly lean towards the fact it wasn't okay.

I think it was right to drop the bombs. We were going to invade a land that had even trained it's children, men, and women to basically fight to the death. I personally believe that if we had invaded Japan, we would have had to just about kill almost every person. The atomic bomb stopped that, and saved more American and Japanese lives.

Just my basic thoughts at the moment. :D

Wow. Extremely intriguing views on both sides. Can't believe I managed to read the whole thing. :P Glad to see so much lively, yet friendly, discussion going on. :)

Glad to see so much lively, yet friendly, discussion going on. :)

IKR? It really has been awesome debating with these people. =) Really friendly and respectful, and not just forcing views on you. ;)

I know, I really enjoyed it, even though it was about a very serious topic. I discussed it with my history-loving brother George while we took clothes off the line yesterday, and then he asked Daddy about it during supper, so we've discussed it a lot around here. George really wished he had been here for the debate. I actually decided to change my project to write about the atomic bomb, so now I'm working on that (even though I don't really know what I think about it), and I may share it on here if I get around to it.

Bethany, I think you believe that America should not have entered the war, but do you think all war is wrong?
^I know that's kind of a weird question, but it would help me to understand your views on WW2 better.^

I just reserved a small library's worth of books from all over Ohio on the subject - covering both sides of the argument. I wasn't able to find Mr. Maybury's book, but I believe I reserved Stinnett's and Layton's. Should be interesting to see what they say.

Here's one of the arguments I've found online against the use of the bomb: suppose that Hitler's Germany had developed the atomic bomb before anyone else. As we all know, he would not have hesitated a moment to use it - London probably would have been a prime target, and several cities in Russia. If Germany had used the atomic bomb, would we have convicted those responsible as war criminals? Would the use of nuclear arms be a war crime? Or would we have simply developed our own, and used it far more liberally than we did? Interesting to think about, though I don't really think this is valid as an argument against the United States' use.

(By the way, I don't think Bethany is against all war. While I don't find her point of view entirely self-consistent, I don't think her position necessarily implies that all war is wrong.)

The idea of the Axis having nuclear weapons is almost as scary as the thought of Iran having nuclear weapons.

War is going to happen in the world we live in. War happened in the Bible, and God even had the people of Israel go to war and make war on nations, so no, I would not say all war is wrong. War is not going to be something that happens in the new heaven and earth, so in that sense, yeah, war is wrong. ;) But I am in no way saying war should not happen on this earth.

This is why I think it was wrong that America joined the war:
1) We made Hitler out to be so horrendous when there have been countless other men in history that have killed far more people. AND. We joined up with a man who killed twice as many innocent people as Hitler did. And he didn't just kill people because they disagreed with him. He also killed people groups that he thought were below him.
2) FDR gave his word, that America would not join the war. Presidents have made promises and broken them, so it's not just that FDR broke his word. But it appears that FDR was working behind the scenes with Churchill and other political leaders to see how we could join the war while at the same time he stated we would not join. It was not done in ignorance. He knew we would join the war, and it appears he said those words so that he could win another presidential election.
3) What is the point in sticking our nose in other peoples business? We didn't have to have anything to do with the war. As I have said before, Hitler and Germany was NOT the super power of the world. I do not believe they would have overrun the world. Our founding fathers practiced an isolationist term with the world. We really should have stayed that way. I have read other books on the topic of how the World Wars have really gotten us in huge trouble with other nations in the world because of really breaking away from that during the 1900's. I read a most intriguing book on the topic of terrorism today. And it can tie into our relations with our interaction with other nations around the world.

It's a sad world we live in. And one thing that all this study has brought me even more firmly to look forward is the day when Christ comes again and justice is brought on all men. And we shall live in a place where peace reigns!

Caleb! If you haven't already, look up and try to get the book The New Dealer's War: FDR and the war within WW2. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on the matter of that one as well. And I think that deals a lot with stuff FDR did while being president.

EDIT - do you have the option through your library to do inter-library loans? I could ask the front desk of your library. I think you could get the Maybury book that way. Most of all the inter-library loans I do have access to hundreds of libraries across the USA.

Here's one of the arguments I've found online against the use of the bomb: suppose that Hitler's Germany had developed the atomic bomb before anyone else. As we all know, he would not have hesitated a moment to use it - London probably would have been a prime target, and several cities in Russia. If Germany _had_ used the atomic bomb, would we have convicted those responsible as war criminals? Would the use of nuclear arms be a war crime? Or would we have simply developed our own, and used it far more liberally than we did? Interesting to think about, though I don't really think this is valid as an argument against the United States' use.

My argument against this would be that Japan received sufficient warning from the United States. If Hitler used the bomb without hesitation and warning, that would probably be considered a war crime. But the US gave Japan the surrender conditions with the alternative of complete destruction.

I'll try to reply to you later… I don't have time right now.

I'll try to get that book also. :) Our library does do inter-library loans, but I think it's only through Ohio - most of the books I reserved weren't even from our library.

About your three points:
We already discussed this first one, to some extent. We didn't just team up with big bad Stalin for no reason. He was a very evil man, worse than Hitler. Most of his nation didn't even like him. (And as an aside, they might have given him the boot after WWII, but they were scared of the US.) But if nation A is fighting nation B, and suddenly nations B and C start fighting, it only makes sense for A and C to work together in some way. We shared information and plans, but even kept our respective fronts distinct.
As for making Hitler look like the big bad guy - I agree, to some extent, that the allies (especially Churchill) were not above such propaganda as would make all Germans look bad. It helps get the public behind the war effort, even if it isn't actually true that the only good German is a dead German. This isn't necessarily bad, but it's unfortunate that we still make such a big deal about Hitler and forget Stalin.
That said, the fact still remains that Hitler was evil. He may not have been as bad as Stalin, but he was still a very wicked man. He wasn't just trying to get revenge because of the Treaty of Versailles. In part, he was, and that was certainly how he got the German public behind him. But that doesn't mean he didn't want to conquer most of Europe, perhaps beyond. He was a very ambitious megalomaniac.

About your second point. I don't think FDR was the nice guy who brought us out of the Depression that everyone makes him out to be. He was a socialist, and I'm not a big fan of those. But I really don't know whether he was working behind the scenes while telling people we wouldn't enter the war. Maybe he was - and I definitely do believe that we had information that might have averted or prepared us for Pearl Harbor, which we either overlooked or intentionally ignored. But I can't say whether FDR personally knew about any of this or not.

Finally, your third point. You seem to be forgetting that the US didn't just start declaring war on the Axis powers. We declared war on Japan after an attack that may or may not have been incited / encouraged / expected by us. Then Germany declared war on us. This order of things does not necessarily mean that our motives were pure, but it allows for that possibility.
Of course Germany was not going to overrun the world. The war in the east was already starting to go against Germany. But if Britain (and Canada) and the US had not invaded France and re-opened a western front, the war in the east could have concluded in a draw, or at least been stretched out for much longer. It's hard to fight a two-front war; much easier to fight on only one front.
And whether or not the US had any business all this, once we were officially at war with Germany (a war which they declared), we might as well help our British allies take down the very wicked Third Reich. Even if it wasn't as wicked as Stalin.

My conclusion is that whether or not the United States was pure when it entered the war, its involvement was (generally) a good thing.

@Everett: Agreed.

I haven't read what Caleb wrote yet, so I might end up saying something that he just said, but here's what I think:

War is going to happen in the world we live in. War happened in the Bible, and God even had the people of Israel go to war and make war on nations, so no, I would not say all war is wrong. War is not going to be something that happens in the new heaven and earth, so in that sense, yeah, war is wrong. ;) But I am in no way saying war should not happen on this earth. *Agreed. Ecclesiastes 3:8, "...a time for war, and a time for peace." I just started reading Joshua this morning and, yes, God definitely did command the Israelites to go to war.* This is why I think it was wrong that America joined the war: 1) We made Hitler out to be *so horrendous* when there have been countless other men in history that have killed far more people. AND. We joined up with a man who killed twice as many innocent people as Hitler did. And he didn't just kill people because they disagreed with him. He also killed people groups that he thought were below him. *Agreed, again. Everyone has sinned and fallen short of God's glory. Murder is very wrong, but so are other sins like lying (which FDR at least sort of did), wrong thoughts, pride, selfishness, the love of money, etc. Murder hurts others greatly, but so do these other sins. We can't point to one sin (except blasphemy) and say that that makes a person any worse than us. Without grace, we would all go to hell, even if we didn't ever do something that would put us in jail.* 2) FDR gave his word, that America would not join the war. Presidents have made promises and broken them, so it's not just that FDR broke his word. But it appears that FDR was working behind the scenes with Churchill and other political leaders to see how we could join the war *while at the same time* he stated we would not join. It was not done in ignorance. He knew we would join the war, and it appears he said those words so that he could win another presidential election. *Agreed, again (and don't worry -- I'll try not to agree with you in everything :)). Even though FDR appeared to be against dictator-type leadership, I have recently thought that it seemed as if he were trying to be America's dictator, maybe even the dictator of the world. I could be wrong about this, but it just doesn't seem like he was letting the average American help make decisions. Running for four terms was way too much (in my opinion, at least).* 3) What is the point in sticking our nose in other peoples business? We didn't have to have anything to do with the war. As I have said before, Hitler and Germany was NOT the super power of the world. I do not believe they would have overrun the world. Our founding fathers practiced an isolationist term with the world. We really should have stayed that way. I have read other books on the topic of how the World Wars have really gotten us in huge trouble with other nations in the world because of really breaking away from that during the 1900's. I read a most intriguing book on the topic of terrorism today. And it can tie into our relations with our interaction with other nations around the world. *Partially agreed...but not completely. First of all, I do _not_ at all see why America should be the one to get involved in wars that they have nothing to do with (and I'm pretty sure you agree with me on this). Proverbs 26:17, "Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears." Theodore Roosevelt said that America should be the first to become involved in problem areas. If I understand this correctly, he meant that if there was injustice going on in some part of the world, America should be the first one to go to that area to fight. I do _not_ agree with him (even if he is my brother Samuel's favorite president :)). I see no reason why it should be America. True, America does have the resources; yet I still do not think it should enter wars it doesn't have anything to do with.* *However, the question is, _Did America have something to do with World War II?_ Before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, I think it _probably_ should have remained out of the war. However, when the Japanese began attacking American ships and then bombed Pearl Harbor, it may have been necessary for America to get involved to protect its citizens. It had to keep the Japanese from bombing American citizens anymore. I am _not_ saying that the way America went about doing this (I. e., using the atomic bomb on Japan to kill 130,000 to 140,000 people) was right. I'm not sure what _was_ right, but at this point, I would probably say for them to use a less powerful (but still somewhat powerful) bomb on military bases, factories, etc. I'm not still not at all sure about that, though; it would still be killing people which should very, very, _very_ rarely be done.* *As George H. W. Bush said, "I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." I feel this way about the atomic bomb. I really don't know what was right, and probably won't ever know while I am on earth, but we know that the bombing of Japan was for the good of believers (see Romans 8:28), even if it wasn't the _right_ thing to do.* It's a sad world we live in. And one thing that all this study has brought me even more firmly to look forward is the day when Christ comes again and justice is brought on all men. And we shall live in a place where peace reigns! *Amen!*

1) Just because Hitler wasn't as bad as others, does that mean we shouldn't have joined the war? Also, it was necessary to team up with Stalin if we were to fight Germany and the Axis powers. If we declare war on Japan and Germany declares war on us, isn't it logical to team up with Germany and Japan's enemies? That would be the Soviet Union. And I don't think that Stalin's murders should prevent the USA from allying with him if the end goal is to defeat the Axis.

2) This is a very controversial issue. I agree that FDR had a desire to enter the war, but as what was done behind the scenes is controversial as there are good arguments on both sides. There's a lot of theories that Churchill provoked FDR to enter the war so Britain would receive help. This is actually a subject I want to look into more.

3) I agree with Caleb. I think that US involvement was a good thing, not necessary. Also, what about Japan? Japan was taking over the Pacific islands, so I believe that it was the USA's duty to counterattack and push them back. By declaring war on Japan, the US must have known that that action would probably get them involved in the east. Concerning Europe, Germany obviously didn't have capacity to take over the world. But they were trying to take over much of Europe, and who knows what Hitler's plans were if he succeeded. Since the US was already sending supplies to Britain to support them before it got involved, they did have a role in Europe. To conclude, I personally believe that the USA did not want to enter the war in the beginning, but certain events (and possibly some of FDR's actions) drew them into it.

I just read this article about why the US dropped the atomic bombs. I wish there citations, but the factual information given seems to coincide with what I have already learned. It is the interpretation of that information that is controversial. It's a great article, and helps define what I already believe about this topic. Here's the link.

http://www.americanheritage.com/content/biggest-decision-why-we-had-drop-atomic-bomb

Just in case you don't want to read the whole article, let me quote the last paragraph, which I think is quite interesting:

"What often goes unremarked is that when the bombs were dropped, fighting was still going on in the Philippines, China, and elsewhere. Every day that the war continued thousands of prisoners of war had to live and die in abysmal conditions, and there were rumors that the Japanese intended to slaughter them if the homeland was invaded. Truman was Commander in Chief of the American armed forces, and he had a duty to the men under his command not shared by those sitting in moral judgment decades later. Available evidence points to the conclusion that he acted for the reason he said he did: to end a bloody war that would have become far bloodier had invasion proved necessary. One can only imagine what would have happened if tens of thousands of American boys had died or been wounded on Japanese soil and then it had become known that Truman had chosen not to use weapons that might have ended the war months sooner."

(Emphasis mine.) We'd be having this exact same conversation, only backwards. :P

I just saw this on Wikipedia, and I thought it might be helpful in our discussion.

"According to a U.S. Office of Strategic Services report, "The Nazi Master Plan", Hitler planned to destroy the influence of Christian churches within the Reich. His eventual goal was the total elimination of Christianity. This goal informed Hitler's movement very early on, but he saw it as inexpedient to express this extreme position publicly. According to Bullock, Hitler wanted to wait until after the war before executing this plan."

EDIT- Oh, and I thought it was interesting that Hitler had some Jewish friends/connections before the war. Also, his grandfather might have been Jewish (but probably was not).

*In response to both Everett and Caleb on my 3 point argument on why the US shouldn't have entered the war.

1) Because we entered the war, yeah, we kinda had to team up with Stalin. I don't believe I have denied that fact at all. It would have been silly to fight Japan and Germany, with the help of Britain, but without the help of Stalin. I just say - we shouldn't have gone there at all.

2) This is a direct quote from Harry Hopkins. If you don't know who this man was this is a short description - One of FDR's closest advisers. One of the architects of the New Deal, specifically the WPA. He dealt with anything that might concern the president. And was FDR's personal emissary to Churchill. And this is his quote. And I gave you that little background info about this man, so it's not just coming from a random man.

"The President is determined that we shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him - there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power." -Harry Hopkins, March 1, 1941 Notice: this was before America ever entered the war

And believe me - there are many, many facts that prove this.

And here is the 8 point plan laid out by McCollum:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire

If you look through the timeline of WW2 history, each of these things were carried out. I'm working on a timeline, and I have charted when there was a date in history when they specifically carried these events out. And the purpose of this 8 point plan was to make Japan attack Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was not just an accident that FDR didn't know about. He was definitely in on the action. And he actually fired long standing political people who actually spoke out against him for what he was doing.

3) To your third point, Everett…. just read my last point. I think we incited Japan. We really did. A quote from McCollum during the time of the writing of the 8 point plan is this: "Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war" That was the whole purpose.

You said "I personally believe that the USA did not want to enter the war in the beginning, but certain events (and possibly some of FDR's actions) drew them into it." FDR and Churchill were distantly related, believe it or not. And it is said that they communicated on a daily basis before FDR ever joined the war. Also, something you could study, if you have the time, is the Atlantic Charter Conference. You may find that extremely fascinating of what things went on during the conference between FDR and Churchill regarding our entering the war.

Basically, my point with this comment is to show, that I believe FDR entered the war - not because he was pushed into it, or needed to reply to Japan after their attack on our land, but because he wanted to.