this is for a school project and i would like your opinion in full detail if that is not an inconvience to you.\n\nif you know anything else about world war two then email me at syrup2010@yahoo.com thanks.
206082
If Japan had not attached Pearl Harbor they would have attacked another target.  Remember Japan started the war in the Pacific not the U.S.  Pearl Harbor was a strategic target and base to the Pacific Fleet.  Our saving grace that day was the fact that our air craft carriers were out of port at the time.  \n\nJapan brought the war to our door step and we took it right back to Tokyo.
606848
i think its a difficult issue. i think that we are in the war for the wrong reasons, but i think the war is necessary. the us being on a different continent than most major wars has always been torn between getting involved and isolationism. we dont always make the right call. i think that the people in iraq and the surrounding regions needed help. needed military assistance. not to make way for democracy or any of that crap. but because of massive human rights violations. thats not why we got into the war of course, but its certainly a beneficial side effect. the us didnt get into WWII to liberate the concentration camps, and stop the slaughter of innocent people all over europe, but again, a positive side effect. so maybe it doesnt matter what reason we go in for, as long as the right thing gets done. the civilian casualties are appalling. but they are mostly due to the iraqi insurgency. of course the iraqi insurgency would not have happened if we hadnt gotten involved, because their aims were being accomplished by saddam hussein. and they'll be there when we leave. i dont know that the middle east is actually a good place for democracy. they evolved differently than america and europe. they may require a different form of government. in the end i dont care. the people will decide, and it will be bloody and violent, as it always is. most really important decisions are. but i think its probably time we got out. but as long as we helped people who needed it, maybe its not such a bad thing we got involved. and before you ask, yes i believe that our next stop should be darfour, and the other places in africa where appalling genocide is taking place. it seems we cant win. some countries tell us to mind our own business. others ask us where the hell we were when they were in trouble. like i said. its complex. i dont think theres a right answer.
647740
There will not be a WW3 as the defintion of WW1 and 2 is that they were the 1st and second World Wars in the 20th Century, we are now in the 21st Century!  I don't think anything like that will happen again, the stakes are too high now with nuclear weapons.  If it did happen there would not be the same community survival spirit due to the selfishness of modern society.  I however wish we still had the grit and determination along with community spirit wichi existed during both World Wars.\n\nTo answer the question, if there were another big War like WW2 I would do what I could to survive and support my countrys efforts (unless we are the bad ones in which case to hell with survival, I'd be in the resistance!).
2900
Well, as you said little earlyer about how the war (WWII) wasnt fought, it sounded like you thought it was for no reason... well, because of the war, millions of people died and only 42 percent of those who died were soldiers. But, because of the war, we have learned priceless technolegys in war fighting and also in fixing injuries. The war created many new injuries that the docters back then didnt face before. Also, the communism in germany and spreading was stopped before Adolf Hitler tried to take over Europe and probably more. (although he did control 78 percent of europe at his best)There is a chinese proverb that saids "war is the evil brother of peace" what that means is that although peace might be in the presence, there is always war that comes right around the corner.\nPeace cannot be made without the presence of war.\nThat is all...
306502
Check this out http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/1939ww2.html
597816
This is a pretty hot topic in my house as I am American, my wife is French and our children enjoy dual citizenship.\n\nThere has been quite a change over the last few years in how this is perceived. One of the biggest problems that we have is that the views of both country's populations are generally shaped by what we see in the biased media. For those who speak both french and english, it is a great exercise to look up the same news story on yahoo.com and yahoo.fr. Wow! It is hard to believe the writers are reporting on the same information. Naturally, this will filter down to the readers and shape their opinions on these topics and events. \n\nMost of the current tension is derived from a wildly different view on how the situation in the middle east is being handled. Obviously, France and the U.S. have very different views on this topic. Most Americans do not realize what a precarious time this is for France from an economical standpoint. Also, most Americans are not cognizant of the volatile nature of the social and political climate within France. While last year's violent uprising of the immensely large Arab population in France was related to the current social and economic conditions within France, it is also a solid indicator of how important it is for the French government to consider the reaction of this portion of their population when making global decisions.\n\nOn the flip side of this topic, it is very important to understand the American mentality when gauging their reaction to the French. Americans are very patriotic and very loyal. Long before WWII, the U.S. and France have been allies on and off the battlefield. France has decided in the past to not participate in global skirmishes and the U.S. has forgiven and forgotten. This time, however, France joined Germany (there's why you hear so much about WWII lately) in vocally protesting the U.S. agenda. More so than the lack of participation, Americans in general view this alliance and course of action as a betrayal of a two and a half century friendship.\n\nAs for the "French model social" as compared to the U.S. model, this has been a long term debate. Previous postings have already described the current economic condition of France so I won't go in to it. One of the problems with this system is that it is predicated on the assumption that everyone will perform to the best of their ability and work hard to maintain their current status and achieve a balanced society. This system supposedly assures the well being of all members of society. The down side is that it discourages the notion that one can drastically improve their financial or personal status by working hard or more.\n\nThe United States, on the other hand, encourages people to work harder, more often or even take multiple jobs to improve their own personal situation. The upside is a whole lot of rags to riches stories and a real opportunity to improve upon one's financial condition. The downside is that it doesn't always work out and there really isn't much of a safety net. It's kind of a pioneer mentality - and that isn't really surprising given U.S. history.\n\nI have no idea which is better, but only which model I prefer. My situation certainly leads me to applaud the American ideal, but I might feel differently if I was poor and uninsured. If I was French, however, I personally wouldn't be incented to do a lot if I knew that I would be working the exact same job for 30 years with no real hope of improving my quality of life by working harder.\n\nAs a rule I find the greater the risk, the greater the reward. In the U.S. there are a whole lot of winners and losers. In France, they don't really play the game.
308724
yes, its a good one, have'nt heard it in a while , thanks for bringing it up... but where did it originate.[ sounds like something out of ww2.]
88784
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_I
357323
In world war 2 Germany had already conqured most of Europe and showed no signs of stopping. If we had not saved their rears the map might look totally different now. Even if they stopped to secure Europe and recoup once finished with Europe (the smart thing to do) it was feared and likely they would push into the Americas, as I think they would have. Thus, we had to stop them or be conqured. Holocaust plays no role as it was not public knowledge until after. \n\nAlso, Pearl Harbour was a direct attack by another nations military. We were at war, like it or not. Japan also invaded Alaska and was dug in on land, something that you don't hear much about. Japan was allied with Germany although Germany told them to focus on Russia and meet in Moscow. Why a relatively tiny island would attack the US when it wasn't finished with China is absurd. WWII made us what we are and perhaps we didn't have the rep we have now and they thought they could frighten us. \n\nTerrorists are not attempting to invade or occupy America and do not come from any particular country. The goals of terrorists are uncertain at best. \n\nAlso Viet Nam changed things and created a more sensitive culture. We got to see war first hand in full color unedited by military journalists. Nam was the first war where civilian journalists were brought along and at the time everyone was excited to be on TV. The journalists went where they pleased and hopped on any chopper that had room. The blood and guts went straight to your living room at the independent news producers discretion at 5:30 each evening as famalies sat around and watched during diner. A mistake that the military will not repeat. The civilian media today is lead by the hand 'for thier own protection.' Nam also gave rise to the peace and love culture. In other ways it is a much different world today. \n(I can stop here but... some other thoughts)\n\nSometimes it seems like the terrorists just want us to leave the middle east alone. I'm curious as to what you think or are told that the terrorists agenda is. Yes they want to terrorize and kill Americans but what for. In Ireland the terrorists wanted independence from Britain, lack the ability for a military victory so, they hope to scare them into a concession. The definition of terrorist is one that attacks civillian targets in order to pressure a govt into something. What do the muslim terrorists want (not that we should give it or accept it)? Death to the infidels? Bombs every five years won't kill us all. There is a political motivation for these high profile bombings. Don't support Israel is an obvious one. Many in Iraq just want to drive us out of Iraq (seems fair). \n\nIraq seems more like a gurilla war than terrorists as well. Civillians may be harmed but the intended targets are usually military, local police, and the coalition govt. All of which are legitimate military targets so it's not terrorism. Trying to frighten us by bombings is not a good thing but not an imminent threat either. Protecting our home from terrorists is a job for police, FBI and CIA not soldiers in the middle east. I find it hard to even think of the war on terror as a war at all. It theoretically includes all terrorists not just muslim ones. They occupy no territory and don't have much unity. Remember Timothy McVay was a solo terrorist. Also certain militant Nazi groups in the mid west are classified as terrorists. \n\nThe mid east has fought for a long time and even if Iraq is stabilized our actions have not made us many friends there. Thus does not lessen terrorism but increases the number those who wish to do us harm. Although I'm just now starting to think the plan was to fix Iraq and show them how nice it can be and other nations may want it. Iraq was chosen because it's easiest and nobody really liked Saddam anyway, even there. If that's the plan it doesn't seem to be working.\n\nSomeone mentions 9/11 and Iraq. The t
310202
Levit, Britain couldnt hold The germans off at all???? three words for you my friend BATTLE OF BRITAIN, the british did just that they held the germans off thanx to THE FEW, the men and women of RAF fighter command many of whom were not much older than thier late teens and early twenty's, after defeat in the BATTLE of BRITAIN the germans turned thier attentions to Russia and got thier arses kicked, plz do some re-search on these things before you open your mouth and insert your foot in it.
365045
1. Shrapnel does not ping off trees it embeds itself, just as he was alledgedly doing. I have heard and read about many exploits during the war,some true some blatantly untrue, it helps to pass the time and i love hearing them and never discourage or disrespect anyone who has lived through the war,my father was one such storyteller from his exploits he battled hitler single handedly, he once told me he was in Andy Clydes Commados it was years later when i learned that it was the army catering corps, what he didnt tell me that he was also in a highland regiment, that fought many battles and was a seargeant major and had been awarded twenty two medals several for courage displayed in battle, so i never thought about that because those memories he held in ,preffering to lighten his stories of daring rather than relive them, LF
638568
I wouldn't call it a war for no reason - there were some very unpleasant episodes of 'ethnic cleansing' there, not a million miles removed from the crimes of the holocaust. Also various sections of the community actually requested UN help in their desperation (unlike Iraq where the US/UK/Aus etc just stormed in uninvited).\n\nBut it is terrible to have people you care about miles from home. I hope everyone involved in peacekeeping duties returns home safely soon.
16054
Well, winning World War II set the United States up to be a world power.  It also helped ushered in a great deal of long-overdue reforms in Europe, and today a European Federal Constitution is now a very real possibility.  Further still,  had Hitler succeeded, he would have undoubetly gone on to destroy the United States indescriminatently.  He would not have spared a single American, even those who resembled his ideal race, because they had grown up in a culture that was, in his eyes, dirty and corrupt (not to mention we were his sworn enemy).  This is one of the many instances in which money plays no role, so the 2.6 trillion figure you site is meaningless.  And even though the use of atomic weapons is still controversial, that alone does not aide your case 'was stopping _Hitler_ worth it.  I'm frankly shocked and appauled that someone could use their freedom of speech, something that wouldn't be enjoyed in a Hilter-ized America, in such a blatantly ridiculous manner.
118457
Thank you for posting the link, i never knew that it was there. there are some Fantastic pictures in this site.\nWhy are there not more pictures like these being showed to the world media.\njust go'es to show you how ONE SIDED the media really is.\nshow Blood,Body's,Explosion's,Devastated town's,Burning buildings. Certainly they will show them a hundred times over.\nNever do you see the Allied troop's doing anything positive.\nFreedom of the press, yes to only print what they want.\nand not what could print or should.\nAgain thank you for the LINK.
333604
Hope this helps.........\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
620532
don't waste time defending this proposition. the fact is that all wars have survivors, even nuclear war. I'd suggest that your essay should chronicle progression of the mass murder that commenced in 1938 and continued through August 1945, with the extermination of 35 - 50 million (no one knows exact casualty totals) people during WW II. Billions survived this catastrophe, and billions will survive the next one.  Nonsense aphorisms such as the one your essay is to explore seem sensible, but in fact serve no purpose other than to distract rational persons from viewing their world in terms of its history and likely - even if dark - future. good luck!
296112
Actually, some of your assertions are just incorrect, specifically the idea that the combatants in Europe were ready to give up and have a victor-less peace. I have read in at least two different places that, had the USA not brought in fresh troops, the Western Allies were willing to last until at least 1921 before another major offensive.\n\nThe impetus that brought the USA into the war, the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, was ordered by Field Marshall Hindenburg over the objection of both the Kaiser and the Reichstag. This was not a 'few petty ships' but had serious loss of life and was a direct challenge to the concept of both the rules of war on the sea and the rights of neutral nations (this is applicable even today, note the United States re-flagging of Kuwaiti tankers).\n\nIf Germany was ready for a victor-less peace as you suggest, they were in a perfect position to lead by example at Brest-Litovsk. Instead, Germany had set up a system of puppet governments along Russia's western frontier with the intention of the war lasting many years longer. The terms at Brest Litovsk were far more harsh than the terms at Versailles, regardless of what anyone claims, and if the Germans had spent less money and energy on cheating (yes, cheating before Hitler came to power!), Germany could have met its obligations with much fewer repercussions. The entry of the United States did not make German defeat a certainty because the amount of troops the United States would put into the field (2 million) would not replace the amount of soldiers withdrawn from the war with the surrender of Soviet Russia and the crushing of Rumania and Serbia. Ludendorf had ordered the 1918 offensive out of panic, and had directed it just as badly. If, instead, he had rescinded the order for War Socialism and allowed German industry to make windfall profits off of the war again as they had before 1916, Germany would have been fine.\n\nIn 1914, Russia had not yet declared war on anyone, but had instead issued an order for a partial mobilization supporting Serbia which freaked everyone out. When Nicholas refused to back down, that was when Germany declared war on Russia, not the other way around.\n\nHowever, three German judges in 1923 could have averted World War II, and they had all the evidence they needed to do it. Hitler had repeatedly said that the Weimar Republic had to be destroyed, and he took action in his Putsch. The first charge leveled against Hitler in the aftermath was treason, which as an Austrian national would have required Hitler to be deported immediately. By his words and by his actions, he was most certainly guilty, but one of the three judges was an admirer of Hitler's.