<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: War crimes &#8212; a question of who wins?  MUST READ!!!!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/</link>
	<description>Korea... in Blog Format</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: baduk</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/#comment-25242</link>
		<dc:creator>baduk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=2115#comment-25242</guid>
		<description>I drive Nissan too.  A Nissan Quest.  I wouldn't touch Hyundai.  I suspect poor workmanship.  I have my own prejudices.

Don't feel bad.  Nissan is mostly French-owned.

And, I think many Americans buy Hyundai thinking it is a Honda made in Korea.  That is great for Korea!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I drive Nissan too.  A Nissan Quest.  I wouldn&#8217;t touch Hyundai.  I suspect poor workmanship.  I have my own prejudices.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t feel bad.  Nissan is mostly French-owned.</p>
<p>And, I think many Americans buy Hyundai thinking it is a Honda made in Korea.  That is great for Korea!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul H.</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/#comment-25241</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:07:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=2115#comment-25241</guid>
		<description>Then how come I'm driving a Nissan?  Looks like "the sun also rises".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Then how come I&#8217;m driving a Nissan?  Looks like &#8220;the sun also rises&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baduk</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/#comment-25240</link>
		<dc:creator>baduk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=2115#comment-25240</guid>
		<description>People now look at Japan as a country.  But, in the early 20th century, it was more than a nation, it was an empire.

The Mighty Asian Samurai.

The country that first beat Russia, snatched Korea from the Chinese grip, and then ate up China itselt.  Moving toward Southeast asian countries..A country that cannot lose.

Koreans were so happy to be a part of this mighty war machine.  They felt proud as a member of the Great Japanese Empire.

In Asia, Japan was the Reich.  Emperor Hirohito was a god.  and Tojo was Hitler.  All Japanese officers were Samurais who feared no one.  They will kill the enemy at first sight, for the glory of the Rising Sun.

Every Korean men wanted to be a sergeant in the Japanese army and some have achieved their dream.  They even became officers.  Koreans looked the same as Japanese and with some education spoke Japanese as well as the natives.  

The Mighty wind of god.   The 100 wins out of 100 battles.  Never lost a battle.

Hirohito and Tojo truly believed that they could take and rule over America.  They ate up China which is about the same size as America.  So, why not America?  Like somebody on this board who thinks this simple, it looked as if two countries are the same situation.

They seemed to be right at first.  They destroyed the Pacific fleet and kicked Yankees out of Phillippines. However, America was not China.  Two totally different kinds of people.  Totally different outcome.

Miscalculation!  The Sun has set.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People now look at Japan as a country.  But, in the early 20th century, it was more than a nation, it was an empire.</p>
<p>The Mighty Asian Samurai.</p>
<p>The country that first beat Russia, snatched Korea from the Chinese grip, and then ate up China itselt.  Moving toward Southeast asian countries..A country that cannot lose.</p>
<p>Koreans were so happy to be a part of this mighty war machine.  They felt proud as a member of the Great Japanese Empire.</p>
<p>In Asia, Japan was the Reich.  Emperor Hirohito was a god.  and Tojo was Hitler.  All Japanese officers were Samurais who feared no one.  They will kill the enemy at first sight, for the glory of the Rising Sun.</p>
<p>Every Korean men wanted to be a sergeant in the Japanese army and some have achieved their dream.  They even became officers.  Koreans looked the same as Japanese and with some education spoke Japanese as well as the natives.  </p>
<p>The Mighty wind of god.   The 100 wins out of 100 battles.  Never lost a battle.</p>
<p>Hirohito and Tojo truly believed that they could take and rule over America.  They ate up China which is about the same size as America.  So, why not America?  Like somebody on this board who thinks this simple, it looked as if two countries are the same situation.</p>
<p>They seemed to be right at first.  They destroyed the Pacific fleet and kicked Yankees out of Phillippines. However, America was not China.  Two totally different kinds of people.  Totally different outcome.</p>
<p>Miscalculation!  The Sun has set.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baduk</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/#comment-25239</link>
		<dc:creator>baduk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:27:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=2115#comment-25239</guid>
		<description>Paul,

I donno.  I guess we will never know exactly how it happened.  Like the Kennedy assassination.

It surely does not fit what we know about Pres. Roosevelt, the man of compassion.  I think he was the greatest president of the US, truly redefined the national characteristics.

Before him, I think the US was just a grand central station, where people come and go(back to where they came from)looking for fortune.  Then, Mr. Roosevelt appeared and showed how America can be a unified nation.

What many consider American democracy, I believe, is Pres. Roosevelt's invention.  Government of compassion, equality and fairness.  Government of social security, medicare and unemployment insurance!  People caring about each other.  Having clear identity as Americans.

George Washington and Abe Lincoln were good presidents too.  But, for me, Pres. Roosevelt made America as she stands today.

Yes, I am a democrat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul,</p>
<p>I donno.  I guess we will never know exactly how it happened.  Like the Kennedy assassination.</p>
<p>It surely does not fit what we know about Pres. Roosevelt, the man of compassion.  I think he was the greatest president of the US, truly redefined the national characteristics.</p>
<p>Before him, I think the US was just a grand central station, where people come and go(back to where they came from)looking for fortune.  Then, Mr. Roosevelt appeared and showed how America can be a unified nation.</p>
<p>What many consider American democracy, I believe, is Pres. Roosevelt&#8217;s invention.  Government of compassion, equality and fairness.  Government of social security, medicare and unemployment insurance!  People caring about each other.  Having clear identity as Americans.</p>
<p>George Washington and Abe Lincoln were good presidents too.  But, for me, Pres. Roosevelt made America as she stands today.</p>
<p>Yes, I am a democrat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul H.</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/#comment-25238</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=2115#comment-25238</guid>
		<description>Richardson: good link.  I believe there are also "in house" histories of the chemical services of the US and the British militaries for WWII; I know the British have such a volume for WWI because I read extracts from it long ago. Don't know what if anything is "on-line" now but I haven't looked.  

Without being able to provide links, I'm pretty sure that you will find that all the major militaries in WWII had their individual soldiers carry gas masks (or at least the soldiers were supposed to).  There is documentary footage of British civilians at the start of the war (1939) being provided with gas masks, as everyone expected that as soon as the war started every air force would start bombing the enemy cities with gas and that this attack could not be stopped (one reason why everyone favored "appeasement" back then).  

I believe that when you see documentary footage of WWII German soldiers (Wehrmacht), that cylindrical thing you see them always wearing or carrying on their "web gear" is their gas mask carrier.

From what I've read US combat troops in WWII commonly threw away their issued gas masks as an extra burden (at least this is what happened in Normandy during D-Day).  If you tell this fact to current young US soldiers I'm sure they will laugh incredulously; if they did this today they would be subject to severe disciplinary measures. 

Also, on D-Day (Normany 1944)  US combat troops going ashore had their clothing impregnated with some sort of "greasy" substance to try to stop the effects of mustard gas on the exterior surfaces of the body.  Eisenhower and his  commanders were afraid the Germans would decide to use mustard on the concentrated troops on the beachheads (I think Eisenhower mentions this in his memoirs).  

Individual US soldiers telling about their experiences on D-Day will often relate how uncomfortable this greasy stuff was.  The current military "overgarments" (protective suits with activated charcoal linings) evidently didn't exist during WWII; I'm not sure when these were first invented or by whom.   

Don't know what the WWII Germans did for their soldiers ( civilians) to provide exterior preparation to protect them against possible use of mustard gas, but you are certainly right that this would have been an enormous problem for them and thus a great incentive to refrain from the use of gas themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richardson: good link.  I believe there are also &#8220;in house&#8221; histories of the chemical services of the US and the British militaries for WWII; I know the British have such a volume for WWI because I read extracts from it long ago. Don&#8217;t know what if anything is &#8220;on-line&#8221; now but I haven&#8217;t looked.  </p>
<p>Without being able to provide links, I&#8217;m pretty sure that you will find that all the major militaries in WWII had their individual soldiers carry gas masks (or at least the soldiers were supposed to).  There is documentary footage of British civilians at the start of the war (1939) being provided with gas masks, as everyone expected that as soon as the war started every air force would start bombing the enemy cities with gas and that this attack could not be stopped (one reason why everyone favored &#8220;appeasement&#8221; back then).  </p>
<p>I believe that when you see documentary footage of WWII German soldiers (Wehrmacht), that cylindrical thing you see them always wearing or carrying on their &#8220;web gear&#8221; is their gas mask carrier.</p>
<p>From what I&#8217;ve read US combat troops in WWII commonly threw away their issued gas masks as an extra burden (at least this is what happened in Normandy during D-Day).  If you tell this fact to current young US soldiers I&#8217;m sure they will laugh incredulously; if they did this today they would be subject to severe disciplinary measures. </p>
<p>Also, on D-Day (Normany 1944)  US combat troops going ashore had their clothing impregnated with some sort of &#8220;greasy&#8221; substance to try to stop the effects of mustard gas on the exterior surfaces of the body.  Eisenhower and his  commanders were afraid the Germans would decide to use mustard on the concentrated troops on the beachheads (I think Eisenhower mentions this in his memoirs).  </p>
<p>Individual US soldiers telling about their experiences on D-Day will often relate how uncomfortable this greasy stuff was.  The current military &#8220;overgarments&#8221; (protective suits with activated charcoal linings) evidently didn&#8217;t exist during WWII; I&#8217;m not sure when these were first invented or by whom.   </p>
<p>Don&#8217;t know what the WWII Germans did for their soldiers ( civilians) to provide exterior preparation to protect them against possible use of mustard gas, but you are certainly right that this would have been an enormous problem for them and thus a great incentive to refrain from the use of gas themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul H.</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/#comment-25237</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:59:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=2115#comment-25237</guid>
		<description>Baduk: "...And, as you probably know, Roosevelt and the US Navy knew about the Japan?€™s surprise attack. And, intentionally allowed it....Pres. Roosevelt felt that it was the time to get into action but could not, due to his campaign promise and the general anti-war attitude. So, he allowed the Pearl harbor to wake people up..."

No Baduk this is certainly a mortal insult to Roosevelt.  Roosevelt had been a Secretary of the Navy during at least part of the Wilson administration (1912-1920), not sure of the exact dates.  He was never in the military himself but he loved the Navy and never would have deliberately allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. 

A massive failure in a "system" is often a result of many different causes working over time and then coming together in one climactic moment.  
Roosevelt did have the Navy move the Pacific fleet base from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in 1940 as a political "signal" to an aggressive Japan.  But the failure by the government and the Congress to adequately fund the Hawaiian defenses (ie provide enough long range aircraft and small surface forces to allow continous long-range search around Hawaii) is one of many reasons Pearl Harbor happened the way it did. 

But probably the main reason is an assumption by just about everyone back then that Japan would never dare to do such a thing.   In that respect Admiral Yamamoto's achievement remains one of the great feats of military history; if Admiral Nagumo (in command of the Pearl Harbor strike force)  had hung around and been successful in taking on the US carriers (which were at sea but nearby) -- and had he also continued to attack the Pearl Harbor facilities -- he could have put the cap on Yamamoto's achievement and perhaps prolonged the war for Japan a few years more at least. 

And who knows, maybe the whole Pacific war would have turned out differently  and Korea would still under Japanese administration.  I think Nagumo disappeared on Saipan during the US invasion in 1944 (seppuku) and they never identified his body; otherwise, you could go to Yasukuni shrine and be sure of giving mental thanks to Nagumo's ashes for not hitting "US" harder in Dec 41.  

Yes I know there have been books and a History Channel show about this idea that Roosevelt "allowed" Pearl Harbor to happen but I think about 98% of historians would reject this.  

It's as ridiculous as the idea of Bush knowing about 9/11 in advance and allowing it to happen.  People love conspiracy theories but in fact it's usually just Murphy's Law (which rules the universe).  

Or you can call it "inshallah" (as God wills) if you prefer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Baduk: &#8220;&#8230;And, as you probably know, Roosevelt and the US Navy knew about the Japan?€™s surprise attack. And, intentionally allowed it&#8230;.Pres. Roosevelt felt that it was the time to get into action but could not, due to his campaign promise and the general anti-war attitude. So, he allowed the Pearl harbor to wake people up&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>No Baduk this is certainly a mortal insult to Roosevelt.  Roosevelt had been a Secretary of the Navy during at least part of the Wilson administration (1912-1920), not sure of the exact dates.  He was never in the military himself but he loved the Navy and never would have deliberately allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. </p>
<p>A massive failure in a &#8220;system&#8221; is often a result of many different causes working over time and then coming together in one climactic moment.<br />
Roosevelt did have the Navy move the Pacific fleet base from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in 1940 as a political &#8220;signal&#8221; to an aggressive Japan.  But the failure by the government and the Congress to adequately fund the Hawaiian defenses (ie provide enough long range aircraft and small surface forces to allow continous long-range search around Hawaii) is one of many reasons Pearl Harbor happened the way it did. </p>
<p>But probably the main reason is an assumption by just about everyone back then that Japan would never dare to do such a thing.   In that respect Admiral Yamamoto&#8217;s achievement remains one of the great feats of military history; if Admiral Nagumo (in command of the Pearl Harbor strike force)  had hung around and been successful in taking on the US carriers (which were at sea but nearby) &#8212; and had he also continued to attack the Pearl Harbor facilities &#8212; he could have put the cap on Yamamoto&#8217;s achievement and perhaps prolonged the war for Japan a few years more at least. </p>
<p>And who knows, maybe the whole Pacific war would have turned out differently  and Korea would still under Japanese administration.  I think Nagumo disappeared on Saipan during the US invasion in 1944 (seppuku) and they never identified his body; otherwise, you could go to Yasukuni shrine and be sure of giving mental thanks to Nagumo&#8217;s ashes for not hitting &#8220;US&#8221; harder in Dec 41.  </p>
<p>Yes I know there have been books and a History Channel show about this idea that Roosevelt &#8220;allowed&#8221; Pearl Harbor to happen but I think about 98% of historians would reject this.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s as ridiculous as the idea of Bush knowing about 9/11 in advance and allowing it to happen.  People love conspiracy theories but in fact it&#8217;s usually just Murphy&#8217;s Law (which rules the universe).  </p>
<p>Or you can call it &#8220;inshallah&#8221; (as God wills) if you prefer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richardson</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/#comment-25236</link>
		<dc:creator>Richardson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=2115#comment-25236</guid>
		<description>Paul H.,

I have heard that Hitler was against the use of chemical weapons, unless as a last resort, because he was a victim (sound strange to call him that) of mustard gas in 1918.

Another explanation (pg. 11) is that they (the Germans) did not have the proper protective suites/filters, and so could not risk a retaliation they could not protect against.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul H.,</p>
<p>I have heard that Hitler was against the use of chemical weapons, unless as a last resort, because he was a victim (sound strange to call him that) of mustard gas in 1918.</p>
<p>Another explanation (pg. 11) is that they (the Germans) did not have the proper protective suites/filters, and so could not risk a retaliation they could not protect against.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baduk</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/#comment-25235</link>
		<dc:creator>baduk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=2115#comment-25235</guid>
		<description>Paul,

And, as you probably know, Roosevelt and the US Navy knew about the Japan's surprise attack.  And, intentionally allowed it.

The US Navy have sent out the half of the US Navy's Pacific fleet out of Pearl harbor intentionally, prior to Japanese fleet arriving there.  Navy intelligenc corp broke the Japanese code and was listening on their moves.  The Navy and, of course, Pres. Roosevelt knew where the Japanese fleet was heading, the Pearl Harbor.

Pres. Roosevelt felt that it was the time to get into action but could not, due to his campaign promise and the general anti-war attitude.  So, he allowed the Pearl harbor to wake people up.

Is the 9/11 a similar scenario?  Anyway, I am behind Bush all the way.  Iraq was the right move.  Then and now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul,</p>
<p>And, as you probably know, Roosevelt and the US Navy knew about the Japan&#8217;s surprise attack.  And, intentionally allowed it.</p>
<p>The US Navy have sent out the half of the US Navy&#8217;s Pacific fleet out of Pearl harbor intentionally, prior to Japanese fleet arriving there.  Navy intelligenc corp broke the Japanese code and was listening on their moves.  The Navy and, of course, Pres. Roosevelt knew where the Japanese fleet was heading, the Pearl Harbor.</p>
<p>Pres. Roosevelt felt that it was the time to get into action but could not, due to his campaign promise and the general anti-war attitude.  So, he allowed the Pearl harbor to wake people up.</p>
<p>Is the 9/11 a similar scenario?  Anyway, I am behind Bush all the way.  Iraq was the right move.  Then and now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baduk</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/#comment-25234</link>
		<dc:creator>baduk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=2115#comment-25234</guid>
		<description>Holy cow, 17th?  Oh, my, my.. I cannot believe it.  No wonder Japan took a jab at America.  And, it took four years to beat them.

There is great lesson here somewhere.  Even a great superpower like the US may become lax and possibly sink back to 17th?  

17th to the first in the span of four years.  Is this God's grace or what?  A miracle.

Thanks, Paul.  I have learned tons of facts today.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Holy cow, 17th?  Oh, my, my.. I cannot believe it.  No wonder Japan took a jab at America.  And, it took four years to beat them.</p>
<p>There is great lesson here somewhere.  Even a great superpower like the US may become lax and possibly sink back to 17th?  </p>
<p>17th to the first in the span of four years.  Is this God&#8217;s grace or what?  A miracle.</p>
<p>Thanks, Paul.  I have learned tons of facts today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul H.</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2005/11/01/war-crimes-a-question-of-who-wins-must-read/#comment-25233</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=2115#comment-25233</guid>
		<description>Baduk: I wasn't referring specifically to any possible US diplomatic communication with Germany prior to US entry into WWII, but rather to a possible diplomatic exchange or series of exchanges between the Allies and the Germans (at any time between 1939 and 1945).  Subject: an unannounced agreement to refrain from using chemical weapons against each other. 

I don't know whether there was any such exchange or not, I was just speculating.  There may be an answer in obscure archives somewhere, who knows.  Besides, any agreements with Hitler were not to be trusted anyway as they were only good as long as Hitler felt it was to his advantage to keep to them.  He was very much like the Communist regime of North Korea in that regard. 

Prior to Pearl Harbor (7 Dec 41) Hitler was dismissive of the US as a potential adversary.  The US had something like the world's 17th ranking military prior to the start of WWII.  Once again you are extrapolating later US military power back to an earlier time when we were simply not such a power.   Prior to Pearl Harbor the people of the US mostly wanted no involvement in foreign wars and they didn't want to pay the taxes needed for a large defense establishment. 
The US Congreess was willing to pay for a world class Navy and at least fund some first-class aircraft development programs, but hardly any money for the Armyl. 

Hitler knew this and made the decision to declare war on the US almost casually, without even bothering to consult his rubber stamp Parliament or his high-ranking military and political advisors.  (Probably at least partly because he was wrapped up in the battle of Moscow during Dec 41, followed by the Soviet 41-42 winter counteroffensive).

Hitler declared war first (10 or 11 December, can't remember the exact date).  He was not required to do so by his treaty with Japan, so one of the great unknowns of WWII is what would have happened had Hitler not done so.  It's not at all clear that Roosevelt could have gotten the US Congress to declare war on Germany first, when it was only Japan that had attacked us on 7 Dec 41. 

If Hitler had won the "Battle of Britain" (the German aerial bombing campaign against England Aug -Sep 1940) he would have followed it up immediatley with an invasion attempt against Southern England across the English channel.  Hitler had his land forces in France preparing for such an attempt and this is well documented in history (the German code name was Operation Sea Lion). 

This would have happened without regard to anything the US would have done or said.  Roosevelt was running for reelection in 1940 against a significant opponent (Wilkie), plus he was trying for a third term which had never been done before in US history.  If Roosevelt had advocated going to war against Germany unilaterally during the election campaign of 1940 he probably would have lost.  Roosevelt felt in necessary to make a famous election promise in (late?) Oct 1940 (approx quote: "Your sons are not going to fight in any foreign wars").  You can look it up if you want. 

We were a much different country back then Baduk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Baduk: I wasn&#8217;t referring specifically to any possible US diplomatic communication with Germany prior to US entry into WWII, but rather to a possible diplomatic exchange or series of exchanges between the Allies and the Germans (at any time between 1939 and 1945).  Subject: an unannounced agreement to refrain from using chemical weapons against each other. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know whether there was any such exchange or not, I was just speculating.  There may be an answer in obscure archives somewhere, who knows.  Besides, any agreements with Hitler were not to be trusted anyway as they were only good as long as Hitler felt it was to his advantage to keep to them.  He was very much like the Communist regime of North Korea in that regard. </p>
<p>Prior to Pearl Harbor (7 Dec 41) Hitler was dismissive of the US as a potential adversary.  The US had something like the world&#8217;s 17th ranking military prior to the start of WWII.  Once again you are extrapolating later US military power back to an earlier time when we were simply not such a power.   Prior to Pearl Harbor the people of the US mostly wanted no involvement in foreign wars and they didn&#8217;t want to pay the taxes needed for a large defense establishment.<br />
The US Congreess was willing to pay for a world class Navy and at least fund some first-class aircraft development programs, but hardly any money for the Armyl. </p>
<p>Hitler knew this and made the decision to declare war on the US almost casually, without even bothering to consult his rubber stamp Parliament or his high-ranking military and political advisors.  (Probably at least partly because he was wrapped up in the battle of Moscow during Dec 41, followed by the Soviet 41-42 winter counteroffensive).</p>
<p>Hitler declared war first (10 or 11 December, can&#8217;t remember the exact date).  He was not required to do so by his treaty with Japan, so one of the great unknowns of WWII is what would have happened had Hitler not done so.  It&#8217;s not at all clear that Roosevelt could have gotten the US Congress to declare war on Germany first, when it was only Japan that had attacked us on 7 Dec 41. </p>
<p>If Hitler had won the &#8220;Battle of Britain&#8221; (the German aerial bombing campaign against England Aug -Sep 1940) he would have followed it up immediatley with an invasion attempt against Southern England across the English channel.  Hitler had his land forces in France preparing for such an attempt and this is well documented in history (the German code name was Operation Sea Lion). </p>
<p>This would have happened without regard to anything the US would have done or said.  Roosevelt was running for reelection in 1940 against a significant opponent (Wilkie), plus he was trying for a third term which had never been done before in US history.  If Roosevelt had advocated going to war against Germany unilaterally during the election campaign of 1940 he probably would have lost.  Roosevelt felt in necessary to make a famous election promise in (late?) Oct 1940 (approx quote: &#8220;Your sons are not going to fight in any foreign wars&#8221;).  You can look it up if you want. </p>
<p>We were a much different country back then Baduk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
