It only took 4 yrs to beat Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito

[cosmik debris]

Today is VJ Day. Today we celebrate the end of WWII.

Today we remember that the United States and its allies simultaneously defeated the three axis dictators and we did it in 4 years.

Meanwhile * has had 5 years to fight the war on Al Qaeda, and he can't even find the enemy, much less destroy it.

Can there be a better argument for change?

[Philosoraptor]

1. Stop making sense!

Its not fashionable.

[BOSSHOG]

2. In other words bush wasn't President during WWII

Where leadership, competence, cooperation, and inspiration won the day.

[kurth]

3. Well, our enemy is not a conventional army

which is why we have to fight them with a conventional army.

[cosmik debris]

5. see post #1 n/t

[Philosoraptor]

6. the killers refuse to wear a uniform!

how can you fight such a diabolical enemy?

[cosmik debris]

8. And you accused me of being unfashionable!

I can't believe that they ignore the dress code! Just for that they have to go to bed without any Geneva convention!

[maxsolomon]

4. plus the 2 that britain fought without us.

'39 to '45.

vietnam lasted significantly longer than this, didn't it?

[cosmik debris]

12. Well, you're right of course

My excuse for the hyperbole is that the Brits were getting the short end of it until we got into the fray. and on Viet Nam, about ten years depending on how you count. (not counting the French part of the war)

[coalition_unwilling]

18. Don't forget the four the USSR fought without us

:) USSR fought Hitler along a 2,000 mile front while we and the Brits dilly-dallied around in North Africa.

[Taxloss]

43. Ahem - dilly-dallied in the most intense air war history has seen!

We defeated the Luftwaffe single-handed (unless you count French and Polish airmen) and started to bomb German cities - which tied up so many troops it came close to being a second front on its own.

And the war in North Africa was savage and vital.

[coalition_unwilling]

86. Let's see -- total casualties for USSR: 20 million. Total casualties

for Allies (non-USSR): Approximately 1 million. Bombing German cities most certainly did not constitute a second front and may have actually served to prolong the war by stiffening German resolve. The war in North Africa may have been "savage and vital" (your words) but it was also peripheral to the main action, that 2,000-mile front with the Stalingrad salient.

[Recursion]

36. You forgot Poland!

They held out for a good 15 minutes....

(I can say that; I'm half-Polish. So I guess I can half say it.)

[Taxloss]

42. Technically, their war was two days longer than Britain's.

And they did their best, there was real heroism in the Polish defence considering the circumstances.

[LSK]

7. maybe because we invaded the correct countries then

WW2 would still be going on if we invaded Brazil on D-Day.

[Bucky]

59. Except Brazil could might've one day maybe possibly become Fascist

And don't tell me it wouldn't have been better to fight them in Rio.

[htuttle]

9. We had a citizen army back then that had their own cooks and truck drivers

They wanted to win, then get back home.

Nowdays, there's too many Milo Minderbinders making money off the whole thing. They don't want it to end...

[coalition_unwilling]

20. Anyone for some chocolate-covered cotton? I've got a

special on it right now, having cornered the Egyptian cotton market. :)

[htuttle]

35. "For Christ's sake, you didn't even get the seeds out!"

[azurnoir]

10. The lesson we

we did not learn in Viet Nam is that it is really not possible to "win" a war where the outcome means more to the "enemy" then it does to us. This is the problem with "asymetrical warfare"

[warrens]

11. We didn't tell our allies to fuck off back then

Amazing what a few friends will do, eh?

[wussoch]

13. Compassion

If we wanted to firebomb Tehran, Damascus, and Riyadh like FDR
did to Tokyo and Dresden... this war would be over as well. 
In WWII we used "overwhelming force" and were fairly
indifferent to Axis civilian casualties.  This is no longer
the case.  Wars have to be fought in a "sensitive"
manner.  In essence, you are blaming Bush for fighting such as
to minimize dead innocents while patting FDR/Churchill/Stalin
on the back for their tactics in "quickly" ending
WWII.  Strange.

[Philosoraptor]

14. riiigghhht.

[cosmik debris]

15. Bullshit

I blame Bush for fighting in Iraq when Osama is in Afghanistan.

[htuttle]

16. Did you already forget about 'shock and awe'?

[wussoch]

38. I have not forgotten "Shock and Awe"

which lasted for a couple of weeks. Was the author of the original post advocating four years of "Shock and Awe?" The point remains that, in this day and age, ultra-agressive warmaking is not warmly regarded. See the criticism of Israel for bombing Hizbollah in Southern Beirut. Hence wars drag on interminably until the U.N. imposes some toothless resolution which only postpones the violence by not fulfilling its mandate (recall Hizbollah was supposed to have been disarmed by the Lebanese government according to the UN resolution when Israel withdrew in 2000).

[Philosoraptor]

44. Suicide booths would be more efficient & compassionate

[wussoch]

47. Suicide Booths

Maybe in the year 2999, after a long, cold cryogenic slumber?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Dresden?

Son, the firebombing of Dresden did gain us one inch of ground or end the war one minute sooner.

Silly historical revisionists.

[wussoch]

37. Well...

How do you know that? Regardless, the point remains that the people who complain about a war dragging on are the same that would/do howl for Bush's head if he pursued more aggressive tactics. I think it is a hypocritical position. (so sue me :))

[cosmik debris]

46. You are making that up

I have never complained about the strident pursuit of America's enemies. But I do complain about NOT pursuing America's enemies. When Bush surrendered in the war against Al Qaeda and allowed Osama to escape in order to fight his war of revenge in Iraq, he betrayed America.

When bush finds, fights, and kills America's enemies I won't complain, but when he uses our army to fight his personal battles at the expense of our security, I won't stop complaining.

[wussoch]

49. Hmmm

I wasn't speaking of you... I was referring to the guy who started the thread who lionized the WWII strategy. Times are different... you can't firebomb civilians these days (and rightly so).

[cosmik debris]

51. I am the guy who started this thread

and I did not lionize WWII strategy except to say that three dictators were defeated simultaneously. My complaint is that Bush abandoned his duty to eliminate AlQaeda so that he could pursue his personal grudge against Saddam. And now Iraq is a failure, and Osama is still a threat.

[wussoch]

53. Fair Enough

I guess I misread it as though you were saying that a WWII-type strategy could have ended the Iraq war more quickly. My apologies.

[Ms. Clio]

90. no, I'd rather bury you

Back, back, Bushbot zombie, from whence you came.

[Philosoraptor]

19. TORTURE trumps compassion every time.

as does murdering 100,000 innocents

[mr blur]

25. Not much compassion being shown in Iraq

Unless you want to talk about compassionate rape, compassionate torture and compassionate murder.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. Excuse me, what war? I don't recall Congress ever having

passed a Declaration of War. Or were you referring to the War for Empire, currently being waged under the Madison Avenue branding of "War on Terror"?

[wussoch]

40. Yikes

I am referring to the "war" mentioned in the first post of this thread. You may call it whatever you wish. What would you say if Bush was prosecuting this "war" as FDR/Churchill/Stalin waged WWII? Do you recall napalm over Tokyo and apocalyptic atomic fire over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It is one thing to oppose a war, but then to turn around and complain that it is not being prosecuted aggressively enough is a strange proposition.

[Bucky]

63. There's 3 wars going on. War on Terror, War for Oil, War vs Common Sense

I favor the war against terrorists, I oppose the war for control of oil, and in the war on common sense, I'm a P.O.W.

[ProfessorGAC]

77. And Yet Nobody Said Any Such Thing

You keep referring to the "strange proposition".

Number one, the aggressive pursuit is not being encouraged by anyone here. You're the one who keeps saying that.

Secondly, Iraq is not being fought over the massive geographic range as World War II, so full scale strategic prosecution of the war shouldn't be necessary. If all the U.S., Britain, and the Soviets had to do was fight within the bounds of Germany, they wouldn't have needed strategic prosecution either. So, strike two.

And, if you think an all out missile assault, using bombs that hit their targets more reliably isn't equivalent to what the Allies did in WWII, then you're flat out wrong. The ordinance drop in Iraq was far more precise and therefore did not require the overkill.

Finally, the problem in Iraq was planning. Wiping out the entire country with full-scale strategic and morale-breaking aggression would still be a failure if we couldn't get our guys home and turned the place into a shooting gallery for insurgents.

So, while you can harp on "hypocritical" positions, you're failing the logic test, and you therefore have an untenable position yourself.
The Professor

[wussoch]

81. Here, Read This Again..

The original post of this thread, in its entirety:

"Today is VJ Day. Today we celebrate the end of WWII.

Today we remember that the United States and its allies simultaneously defeated the three axis dictators and we did it in 4 years.

Meanwhile * has had 5 years to fight the war on Al Qaeda, and he can't even find the enemy, much less destroy it.

Can there be a better argument for change?"

This implies that the tactics used in WWII, were they applied here, would have ended the war by now. We all know what tactics were used in WWII by both Axis and Allies... they bombed civilians ON PURPOSE in London, Tokyo, Dresden, etc.

"Secondly, Iraq is not being fought over the massive geographic range as World War II, so full scale strategic prosecution of the war shouldn't be necessary. If all the U.S., Britain, and the Soviets had to do was fight within the bounds of Germany, they wouldn't have needed strategic prosecution either. So, strike two."

Professor, what does that have to do with anything? And what, exactly, is a "full-scale strategic prosecution?" A "strategy" is a methodology for victory, either in a theater of war or for an entire war. The "tactics" are how that is "strategy" is carried out. For instance, a strategy would be to "soften up" a position with airpower prior to a ground invasion. The tactics used to accomplish this goal may include, as in WWII, "softening up" the civilian population. This is what was done for almost a year in 1944 by dropping napalm on Tokyo... it was assumed at that time that a force of at least one-million U.S. soldiers would be required to take part in a "Normandy-style" invasion of the Japanese islands. It was clear that Japan had already lost the war in the Pacific by that point, but refused to surrender. The Manhattan Project had, by this time, not produced Fat Man and Little Boy and it was unknown when a fissile bomb would be produced. The napalm was dropped by B-29s for months and months on Tokyo, which was largely made of wood and paper at that point. At least 200,000 civilians were killed (more than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined). FDR's "strategy" was to demoralize the Japanese population, the tactic: by constant attacks on the civilian population, killing as many as possible and destroying as much economic/military infrastructure AND CIVILIAN infrastructure as possible with napalm (the second "tactic" used was when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS). This was the same theory used by Hitler in bombing London: Great Britain is an island fortress and mounting an amphibious assault was an undesirable proposition.

In the Iraq war, "softening up" up the civilian population was not a strategy used by the U.S., because they wanted to "win hearts and minds." So when Fallujah or Ramadi became terrorist strongholds, the Churchill/FDR/Hitler "strategy" of "softening up" civilians was NOT USED. I don't recall the Coalition forces trying to kill everyone they could in Fallujah or Ramadi prior to "going door-to-door" and clearing out insurgents by dropping napalm on the whole city or using nuclear weapons.

And that was the point of my post: that it doesn't make any sense to oppose a war because you oppose the killing of innocent Iraqis, and then lament the fact that the U.S./Britain didn't resort to the tactics used to win WWII to get it done "more quickly."

You then state: "And, if you think an all out missile assault, using bombs that hit their targets more reliably isn't equivalent to what the Allies did in WWII, then you're flat out wrong. The ordinance drop in Iraq was far more precise and therefore did not require the overkill."

This misses the point of actually trying to kill as many citizens as possible to demoralize the populace and pressure the government to surrender based on the incredible suffering and destruction of its own population (as done in WWII). Yes, we have surgical strike capabilities now and can destroy Building A and leave Building B intact 50 yards down the street from Building A. And, as such, WE DID NOT TARGET AND KILL CIVILIANS in order to "convince" the insurgency that further fighting was fruitless. Why? For three reasons... first, world opinion... second, morality... and lastly, because the insurgents would probably not give a flying goddam about the death and destruction of their "own people" owing to the jihadist mentality of believing that these bombs were actually doing the people a favor and sending them to Allah as martyrs. The "overkill" in your above statement was INTENTIONAL in WWII, not collateral damage.

"Finally, the problem in Iraq was planning. Wiping out the entire country with full-scale strategic and morale-breaking aggression would still be a failure if we couldn't get our guys home and turned the place into a shooting gallery for insurgents."

Here, I agree with you completely. And that was my point... you can't reference WWII and the way that war was fought and "how quickly" it was won UNLESS you are advocating using WWII tactics here. And many of those tactics, necessary or not, involved TARGETING CIVILIANS, dropping napalm on them, burning men, women, and children alive... burning hospitals, schools, whatever happened to be inflammable without regard for human life.

I see a lot of griping on this site, but very few bother to offer solutions including the Democratic Party themselves. The dialogue in this country has distilled down to "Stay the Course" vs. "Pull Out Now." How informative! Clearly, with the Bush Administration we get more of the same... what do we get if the Democrats are in power? Screaming, sweating, red-faced Al Gore... the Intellectual John Kerry, who couldn't get Aristotle himself to understand his positions on any simple issue... Ned Lamont, some guy who happened to make money in business and with no prior experience that was nominated in a primary because he favors immediate withdrawal? Hillary Clinton, who talks out of both sides of her mouth with the best of them? It absolutely kills me that Lieberman was ejected by this party... he is a man of integrity, a good Democrat for more years than I have followed politics... a guy with a position somewhere between "Stay the Course" and "Pull Out Now." And he was eaten alive, so now we can hear Lamont (that proven military genius) advocating immediate withdrawal. This guy (Lamont) had a few bucks, spouted some buzzwords and managed to oust the 2000 Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee with pure, useless banality. The country is now caught in the vice between two idiotic propositions, with Liberals advocating "Pull Out" and Conservatives sticking with "Stay the Course." Add the two factions together and you are probably still under 1/2 the population of the U.S. For the rest of us, this is simply not enough. Where are the Statesmen/women to unite the country with good, decent common sense?

And that is the common sense that is missing when you both oppose a war (and, admirably, regret all civilian loss of Iraqi life), and then lament (indirectly) that it hasn't been prosecuted like WWII... the war to end all wars with regard to targeting civilians and burning them alive.

Hey, that one has to be worth five or ten posts... I think I can safely do irony now.

[coalition_unwilling]

87. I think you have mis-understood me. My point was that you (I think)

had claimed that if we just fire-bombed and\or nuked populations enough, the war would be "over". The point I was trying to make is that it's not really a war (which presumes two relatively balanced foes), but more like a massive land-grab ("War for Empire") branded as a "War on Terror" for naive ahistorical American consumption.

So there is no "war" to be over, in the sense that WWII was a "war." And what exactky would fire-bombing Tehran do?

[wussoch]

41. Truman

I forgot to include Truman, who authorized the nuclear strike on Japan.

[salinen]

48. Huh?

If we (are we at war with them)? wanted to firebomb Tehran, Damascus, and Riyadh like FDR
did to Tokyo and Dresden... this war would be over as well.
In WWII we used "overwhelming force" and were
fairly indifferent to Axis civilian casualties. This is no
longer the case. Wars have to be fought in a
"sensitive" manner. In essence, you are blaming
Bush (no WMD's) for fighting such as to minimize dead innocents while
patting FDR/Churchill/Stalin on the back for their tactics in
"quickly" ending WWII. Strange.

When Tehran, Damascus, or Riyadh show the same imperialistic tendancies
as Germany, Italy, and Japan, then we have a war. Otherwise, you're
just a violent, stupid, warmongering fool like Rush, Hannity, Savage,
Coulter, Kristol, et al.

[wussoch]

50. Insults?

I wasn't the one advocating a WWII-type strategery. I was mocking that position. I thought that was clear enough...

[salinen]

52. Opps

Hey, I'm really sorry. Seriously sorry.

[wussoch]

54. No Problemo...

mi amigo. It's tough to do irony on this site sometimes!!

[AwakeAtLast]

62. Ask my Iraq vet husband if that's what's really happening in Iraq.

:eyes:

[Snivi Yllom]

65. It could be over in 4 weeks

if we fought the War on terror the same way we fought WW2.

total all out war.

But I don't think anyone really wants that.

[Bucky]

68. Riyadh? Did you say attack Riyadh? (Oh... & welcome to DU!)

War today doesn't have to be fought in a sensitive manner, as you complain. It has to be fought with an eye on world opinion. If we lose that (as we have been) then we lose the war. A major objective in the war against al Qaeda must be to turn the world away from their extremism and toward acceptance of American military supremacy. If we fail in those objectives, we lose the war. It would be naive to ignore this critical component of modern warfare.

In WW2 we didn't just kill Axis civilians. Thousands of French civilians were killed in the bombing before D-Day. They understood this was necessary. The world just isn't as accepting of collaterals today. Failure to deal with this is a failure of policy, planning, and strategy.

[wussoch]

71. Riyadh

My post was written with an ironic bent. It is apparent to me that very few on this site are subtle enough to appreciate it (irony, that is). I was absolutely advocating the OPPOSITE of bombing Riyadh, Damascus, and Tehran.

[Bucky]

73. You need to have more than 24 posts here before you can do sarcasm

It is apparent to me that very few on this site are subtle enough to appreciate it (irony, that is)

I think you'll find that sarcasm in both its subtle and caustic flavors is found quite easily and reacognized quite readily on DU. But sometimes it is misread as sincere foolishness, particularly when it's clumsily applied.

[wussoch]

79. How Could You Miss This?

From my post:

"In essence, you are blaming
Bush for fighting such as to minimize dead innocents while
patting FDR/Churchill/Stalin on the back for their tactics in
"quickly" ending WWII. Strange."

Clumsily applied... hmmmmm. Insults for the second time in less than a week at this site. At least the first guy managed to see his error when rereading the post. I don't need your pontifications on how many posts one needs to write before doing irony, Bucky.

[sgxnk]

21. so u are suggesting

we drop nuclear weapons on them :)

[cosmik debris]

24. On the Republicans?

No, I think impeachment would be good enough.

[sgxnk]

27. touche

i am just wondering how long WWII would have gone on if we did not drop them bombs

the japanese were pretty frigging fanatical

they worshipped their emperor as a godhead, they viewed all non-japanese as subhuman animals (their ferocity towards the chinese was among the worst i have ever heard of) etc.

[cosmik debris]

30. I don't doubt that

But you also can't compare Osama to the trio of Hitler Mussolini and Hirohito. They had massive armies and massive economies to support their armies. Osama lives in a cave and can't even use the phone safely.

If we put one tenth of the effort into catching Osama that we used on Hitler, we might be celebrating the end of the war on Al Qaeda.

[sgxnk]

31. i agree

i am not comparing them. i was just making some points

i am all about making points

or something

[wussoch]

57. But Remember...

That we never "got" Hirohito or Mussolini OR Hitler. It is somewhat shortsighted to insinuate that all the world's problems would be solved by taking out Osama, although it would certainly help. He has "armies," although not in the conventional sense, that are scattered to the four winds. I think the analogy holds for Hirohito, whom the Japanese revered as a God (as so well-stated by a previous author)... taking him out may have ended the Japanese aggression. However, Hitler... I don't know. I don't think he had the fanatical allegiance of his armies that bin Laden has. The Third Reich was largely a top-down organization with many "regular" soldiers who were not interested in Holocausts or Aryan Supremacy. The fanaticism of al-Qaeda would quickly boost another up to the status of bin Laden.

[cosmik debris]

66. You seem absolutely intent on ignoring the point of the post

That point being that Bush has failed miserably. For five long years he has failed miserably. He gave up on the war against Osama so he could fight his personal war of revenge against Saddam and that created an even more dangerous situation for us.

It is not about WW II. It is about WW III and how we are losing.

[mogster]

22. Norwegian resistance movement, lol

Up north, close to the North Cape. We were occupied, so there wasn't much fighting due to fear of retaliation. And lack of weapons.
But to keep your fellow citizen informed about what was going on, was important. When the Germans withdrew, they used the scorched earth tactics, and burned most of the province Finnmark. The people there anticipated this, and put a lot of things into barrels, which were dug down into the ground and also placed into caves. These pictures survived that way, I suppose.

This is my mum and dad during, or right after, the war. What were they thinking of - the future?



Here's the whole set:
http://www.nitrogen.no/old_album/index.php

[Philosoraptor]

23. BEAUTIFUL PICS!

thanks for sharing this bit of history.

[mogster]

69. Thank you, Philosoraptor

People seemed so different before, so sure of what to do. I wish we could see into the future sometimes. I feel small in comparison to the people of previous generations.

[LostinVA]

32. Norwegians rock -- and they're a nice looking group of people, too

[mogster]

70. Thanks, LostinVA

Things were different back then, Norway was really a poor country. Today there's oil money, and where there's oil money, there's also - surprise - neoconservatives :think:

[leftofthedial]

28. the democrats were in power then

and the war was and actual war against an actual enemy instead of just a made-for-TV marketing infomercial

[lectrobyte]

29. You're assuming they want this 'war' to end...

[whistle]

33. Well of course, but the income tax rate on the wealthiest Americans

...was 94%. Money talks and bullshit walks!

<snip>
Shared Sacrifice, Shared Glory
Sam Pizzigati
May 28, 2004

It's true: During World War II, there was 94 percent marginal income tax rate. And what's more, the president had originally proposed a 100 percent tax rate. In those days, everyone made contributions for the war, and the wealthy made the biggest ones. Labor journalist Sam Pizzigati argues that this shared sacrifice from the top down helped define the "Greatest Generation" and pulled the country—including the elites—together in wartime. <more>

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/shared_sacrifice_shared_glory.php

[klook]

61. Excellent article

I wasn't aware of the huge income tax rate during WWII.

That's a pretty good gauge of whether a war is worth fighting. If the threat is so great, the risk so high--or if the American people's commitment to the fight is so strong--that we need to set a maximum wage to pay for it, then maybe it's worth it.

[SoCalDem]

34. well sort of... 1939-1945 is a wee bit more..but i get your drift n/t

[cosmik debris]

39. Yeah, I play a little fast and loose

But I was talking about the US involvement Dec. 7 1941 to Aug 15, 1945

But you got the point.

[Taxloss]

45. The Second World War lasted nine years, 1936 to 1945, if you get fiddly

about it.

1936 sees all the key opening moves - the German entry into the Spanish civil war and the Japanese invasion of China. Those were the opening shots of the struggle.

Put another way, in 1935 the war could have been stopped (or at least limited). In 1936 it became inevitable - and could have been a good deal longer.

[SweetLeftFoot]

76. Actually

In China and Japan they talk about the 1933 - 45 War.

US contributions to the defeat of the Axis powers in the European theatre were effectively minimal. Supplies yes, but the Luftwaffe was blunted with British made planes flown by Brits, Commonwealth and Frre Polich/Czech/French pilot.

Once the USSR was involved, Hitler was toast, just a matter of time.

This does not downplay the bravery and sacrifice of US sailors, troops and airmen in the Pacific theatre but IMHO, the Pacific War and the European War were two entirely seperate conflicts that just happened to be taking place at the same time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. No, the US did make a major contribution in Europe too

Yes, the Battle of Britain stopped the Nazi advances, and secured the European base vital for later fighting by the British plus Commonwealth and the US; but the invasion of Italy and then France did divert a lot of German effort from the Eastern Front too, and that involved US military lives, not just supplies. The bombing of Germany did have an effect too (though not the 'morale sapping' than bombing civilians was claimed to achieve) - which the Soviet Union did very little of itself.

I agree the 2 conflicts were almost separate - here in Britain, VE day is the one people remember, while VJ day, even though British forces were fighting there too, gets almost forgotten.

[SweetLeftFoot]

82. Not saying they did nowt

But the effective contribution was very small.

I can't remember where I saw the statistic, but in WWI, something like 29 out fo every 30 german soldiers were killed by the Red Army.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. Not quite that much

but it is a lot more one-sided than I realised:

Overmans lists the following losses- Africa 16,066; the Balkans 103,693; Northern Europe 30,165; Western Europe until 12/31/44- 339,957; Italy 150,660; against the U.S.S.R. until 12/31/44- 2,742,909; final battles in Germany during 1945-1,230,045; other( including air war in Germany & at sea ) 245,561; POWs 459,475- Grand Total 5.318 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Germany2

The bulk of the 1945 deaths in Germany would have been against the Red Army, I presume. Perhaps about 3 out of 4, overall?

[SweetLeftFoot]

85. Yeah

Puts in perspective though.

The one areas where the US/UK can really claim decisive victory over the nazis is the Batle of the Atlantic.

[depakid]

55. errr ...it took a little longer than 4 years

And it was Russia (and also Britain) who deserve the lion's share of the credit for defeating Hitler.

[deaniac21]

56. 9-1-1939 through 9-2-1945 is 6 years.

[cosmik debris]

58. Attn History Police

In the OP I said WE did it in 4 years. WE as in the United States and our allies.

The United States entered the war on Dec. 7, 1941. The United States concluded the war on August 15, 1945.

I know a lot of other stuff happened outside those dates but they don't apply to the OP because they did not include "WE".

You may now return to you nit-picking.

[Bucky]

60. Everyone, scram! It's the history police!!

[klook]

67. You forgot Tonga

They joined the fight on September 4, 1939. :evilgrin:

[Jack from Charlotte]

80. 12/7/41 thru 8/15/45 was 1,347 days. 9/11/01 thru today 8/16, was 1780 ...

days, and counting. If you use 9/1/39 as the start of WWII then it took 2175 days. Regrettably, I fear we'll reach that number in Iraq, too.

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. Our allies were already fighting before we even started.

So you can't just discount the more than two years BEFORE the US entered the war. And two of the major turning points, Stalingrad and El Alamein, came without American troops taking part at all.

Not only that, it was the RAF that won the air war against Germany, and the Soviet Union that won the ground war (and there were actually more British and Canadian troops landed on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day than Americans, which a lot of Americans don't know)...America made an important contribution to the war effort in Europe, certainly, but we were a long way from winning the war single-handed (and had we had to do it alone we might've lost).

[Snivi Yllom]

64. not a fair comparison

The 'war on terror" is not going well, and that's entirely due to 1. the tactics and makeup of the enemy 2. means available to fight those tactics and the enemy.

If the US decided to fight terror in the way we fought Japan and Germany, we could probably win in 4 weeks. But I don't think we want to have an all out war with Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Egypt.

I don't have the answer and I have yet to hear from anyone who does have the answer.

[Yupster]

72. Our strategy for ending the war against Japan

was to nuke them until they surrendered. We used every nuke we had and would have kept using them as we made them.

Today we have about 40,000 nukes. If we were to use the same strategy, I bet we could get our enemies to surrender in less than 2,000 nukes. Doesn't sound like the best plan though so I don't think we should be urging Bush to fight like Truman did. He'd be tempted to.

[bananarepublican]

74. Yes but not one of them needed a dialisis (sp?) machine!!! n/t

[Bosso 63]

75. If we ran this country like a business ,

It would be time to fire the CEO!
Republicans want to run on "who will keep America safe".
Great, Republicans have done a crappy job, so I would respond with;

America, this is your country under Republican leadership, they want to give money to the rich and kill your children, any questions.

Democrats need to pound on this point until our ears bleed.

[readmoreoften]

83. By the way, your talking point was repeated on RW talk radio yesterday.

Coincidentally or not, I was talking to a friend of mine who monitors RW radio and he said that he "even heard RW pundits criticize Bush. Today one of them said 'It only took 4 years to win the war against 3 dictators in the 40s, why is it taking so long now?'"

Interesting who reads what, huh? ;)

[RamboLiberal]

88. We just passed VE day in length on Tuesday

August 15, 2006

We're counting from the day Germany declared war on the US (December 11, 1941) to VE day (May 8, 1945). This is 1244 days. The Invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003 at 21:34 EST when the US began their first air strike on Baghdad.

On August 15, 2006 21:30 EST the United States will have been at war in Iraq longer than it was at war with Germany in World War II.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25798&l=i&size=1&hd=0

In November we'll pass VJ Day.

[Spinoza]

89. You have a good point but

some could argue that the defeat of Germany actually took nearly 6 years. WWII began September 1, 1939 with Germany's attack on Poland. Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, 5 years and 8 months later. On the other hand, we could argue that the U.S. defeat of Japan, a war which began on 12/7/41 and ended with Japans surrender on 8/14/45 only took 3 years and 9 months. Then again, we nuked Japan.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

92. Six years at least, actually, and arguably more

1942 was the date of America's entrance to World War II, but it had already been going on for several years - Germany invaded Poland in October of '39, and Japan and China had been at war since '37, in a fight that "spilled over" into WWII.