Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (86136)	8/23/2000 2:08:01 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hope you don't mind if I jump in with my own armchair observations. After Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war against us, I don't see how we could have possibly avoided or delayed war very long. First, Japan's drawing of American blood on American soil and Germany's subsequent jumping on board, galvanized the American public. The public knew war was inevitable. And was ready to get on with it and get it done, not sit back and wait for conditions to ripen. Second, given the inevitably of war, moving quickly was the practical thing to do. The idea that Germany and Russia would bleed one another to death eventually wasn't at all certain. They might have worked out some sort of truce or one (probably Germany) might have prevailed over the other. Either would have been bad for us. Regarding North Africa, the purpose was 1) to deny Germany access to oil and 2) to make the southern flank of Europe vulnerable to attack from the Mediterranean. Both were practical concerns given the inevitability of war with Germany. Lastly, I think invading Europe from ships would have been very difficult. Yes, we waged war successfully in the Pacific this way but there we were fighting against enemy bases on relatively small islands. JMO's