You're correct in that Germany wasn't initially physically threatened by America and vis versa. I have no doubt that a war with Germany was inevitable, if not for ideological, pragmatic reasons. Germany declared war on the US first (we both agree on this) and Germany almost immediately began Operation Paukenschlag (Drumbeat), attacking shipping off the US coast in January of 1942. In contrast, the Eighth Air Force didn't start its strategic bombing campaign in Europe until July of 1942.
When you remove ideology from the equation, even in a practical sense, out of the Axis powers, focusing on Germany first was the logical decision. Japan already blew its offensive load within the first six months of the Pacific War, culminating at Midway. The US, like some in the Japanese Navy in particular, understood that a protracted war against the US was impossible to win due to economics alone. Germany on the other hand, was undoubtedly the stronger of the two (Italy was too inept to count) major Axis powers and it makes sense it would take the most effort to defeat (Japan after Midway was more or less a turtle, heavily defended fortress but lacking freedom of movement). Germany on the other hand, even in 1942, could still punch hard against the Soviet Union (as evidenced in Case Blue).
I do agree (like I mentioned in my first comment) that America did everything short of declaring war on Germany. But near war, isn't the same as war. In terms of actively engaging in war actions, Germany punched first through U-Boat operations off the coast of America. If actions taken under the Neutrality Act of 1939 are considered aggression, the same argument could be applied to Japan. That we were the aggressor against Japan, due to economic sanctions at the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War.
The left of American politics didn't just jump onto the bandwagon after Barbarossa. They were always the hawkish entity. Democrats controlled both chambers during the depression and the presidency through FDR. It was New Deal politicians who pushed the Neutrality Act of 1939 through. And it was the America First Committee (sound familiar?) that opposed interventionism. That being said, I would have preferred America get involved as little as possible until directly threatened, but that didn't happen. And it's been a double edge sword since. It brought America great prosperity (for a while at least), but at the same time, crippling baggage that we still carry around in the form of being the world's police.
but at the same time, crippling baggage that we still carry around in the form of being the world's police.
That unfortunately, is the legacy that WWII has on generations that barely remember the so-called Greatest Generation. We are faced with a de facto assumption by our bureaucratic state that consists largely of the military industrial complex and it's enablers, that We, and We Alone, are all that matters in the world. The problem with that thinking is that we have default position to act in every geopolitical crisis and every international concern, a burdern that that no other nation state would every take on and no other people would default to. For instance, I watched a very intelligent, accurate and well documentary on Rwanda recently. The part that really irked me though, was a white pastor from America who was an eyewitness to the Hutu attacks on Tutsi, who denounced America because Clinton didn't sent our military in to save the Tutsi. That was his go to. That's what he defaulted to without once, every considering that by the time we could even mobilize, the Hutus would have spent all their energy on slashing the Tutsi to death...also, even more remote from his calculation was whether or not it was actually worth it for mothers and wives in red state USA to see their sons and husbands die trying to save the Tutsi. He acted as if valueing the lives of our own service members (and our own taxpayers that fund our military) over the lives of the Tutsi was in and of itself morally repugnant. He just glossed over the moral fact that we had nothing to do with the Tutsi V Hutu tribal wars that have been waged for over a century in Rwanda, that it was in fact a Belgium colony that the U.S. had nothing to do with (The Belgian UN troops pulled out hours before the genocide began to save the lives of Belgian soldiers) and there was literally no U.S. interest in inteferring. One could conceivably argue there was a humanitarian interest but if that's the case, that would be a rationale for colonizing and conquering the better part of the entire continent. White Man's Burden type thinking is not feasible.
The second thing that drove it home for me, is the novel U.S. embassy and state department protocal of pushing the LGBTQIA++ agenda outside our country. It used to be the highest and most cherished part of our diplomatic core that our American flag flew at all our embassies and consulates but in the last 15 years, it has become a gleeful, in-your-face and F your traditional morality move to shove the LGBTQIA++ rainbow flag (and even the transgender flag) in the faces of our hosts countries and then denounce them. It used to be that the gentle art of diplomacy avoided creating rifts where it need not be the focus. It is quite frankly, the opposite of diplomacy to fly that flag in a nation in which a strong majorityof the populace would react negatively. How it became our number one objective is beyond me.
About WWII: We didn't fight in mainland Europe until 1942 because our plan to wage war against Nazi Germany was originally to push the Nazis out of North Africa and then invade Italy and move north to Germany from there. We ended up moving to Germany from D-Day's beach landing in Normandy France to Germany instead. However, we did first land in North Africa so it's a bit misleading to say that we didn't actually react to Germany's war declaration. My personal opinion is that Germany was not the bigger threat because the chances of them being able to hold both the western and eastern front was always doomed but arguably, we didn't understand that at the time. Also, our involvement most certainly made the war of a much shorter duration and most definitely made it much less costly in terms of human lives. My point stands that Western Europe and the USSR would have eventually defeated Nazi Germany.
One more thing: Look up the Doolittle bombing run over Japan. FDR's initial target was Japan but we lacked the resources to do much but FDR did a symoblic bombing run on Japan called the Doolittle operation in which bombers, flew over japan, randomly dropped bombs and landed in China. FDR did not consider Germany the bigger threat militarily. Also compare the number of troops send to island hopping battles in the Pacific theatre verses North Africa. By far, we took the most casulaties in the first year of the war trying to island hop our way in Pacific. Today, we think the European theatre was the primary war because OMYGOSH HITLER! NAZIS! but in reality, the bulk of the U.S. involvement in World War II was the pacific theatre and we pretty much handled that almost entirely on our own. I don't mean to sound antisemitic but it's true....our media focused on the Holocaust and the European theatre for decades since the 1960's because of the Jewish presence in our media and because of our own eurocentric biases. In the aftermath of WWII though, before the 1960's, we were far more likely to retell and talk about the Pacific theatre because that's were the bulk of our forces served. That's also were we took most of our casulaties. See movies like the Fighting Sullivans, The Flying Tigers etc. It wasn't until the 1960's that our focus started emphasizing the European theatre.
You're correct in that Germany wasn't initially physically threatened by America and vis versa. I have no doubt that a war with Germany was inevitable, if not for ideological, pragmatic reasons. Germany declared war on the US first (we both agree on this) and Germany almost immediately began Operation Paukenschlag (Drumbeat), attacking shipping off the US coast in January of 1942. In contrast, the Eighth Air Force didn't start its strategic bombing campaign in Europe until July of 1942.
When you remove ideology from the equation, even in a practical sense, out of the Axis powers, focusing on Germany first was the logical decision. Japan already blew its offensive load within the first six months of the Pacific War, culminating at Midway. The US, like some in the Japanese Navy in particular, understood that a protracted war against the US was impossible to win due to economics alone. Germany on the other hand, was undoubtedly the stronger of the two (Italy was too inept to count) major Axis powers and it makes sense it would take the most effort to defeat (Japan after Midway was more or less a turtle, heavily defended fortress but lacking freedom of movement). Germany on the other hand, even in 1942, could still punch hard against the Soviet Union (as evidenced in Case Blue).
I do agree (like I mentioned in my first comment) that America did everything short of declaring war on Germany. But near war, isn't the same as war. In terms of actively engaging in war actions, Germany punched first through U-Boat operations off the coast of America. If actions taken under the Neutrality Act of 1939 are considered aggression, the same argument could be applied to Japan. That we were the aggressor against Japan, due to economic sanctions at the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War.
The left of American politics didn't just jump onto the bandwagon after Barbarossa. They were always the hawkish entity. Democrats controlled both chambers during the depression and the presidency through FDR. It was New Deal politicians who pushed the Neutrality Act of 1939 through. And it was the America First Committee (sound familiar?) that opposed interventionism. That being said, I would have preferred America get involved as little as possible until directly threatened, but that didn't happen. And it's been a double edge sword since. It brought America great prosperity (for a while at least), but at the same time, crippling baggage that we still carry around in the form of being the world's police.
That unfortunately, is the legacy that WWII has on generations that barely remember the so-called Greatest Generation. We are faced with a de facto assumption by our bureaucratic state that consists largely of the military industrial complex and it's enablers, that We, and We Alone, are all that matters in the world. The problem with that thinking is that we have default position to act in every geopolitical crisis and every international concern, a burdern that that no other nation state would every take on and no other people would default to. For instance, I watched a very intelligent, accurate and well documentary on Rwanda recently. The part that really irked me though, was a white pastor from America who was an eyewitness to the Hutu attacks on Tutsi, who denounced America because Clinton didn't sent our military in to save the Tutsi. That was his go to. That's what he defaulted to without once, every considering that by the time we could even mobilize, the Hutus would have spent all their energy on slashing the Tutsi to death...also, even more remote from his calculation was whether or not it was actually worth it for mothers and wives in red state USA to see their sons and husbands die trying to save the Tutsi. He acted as if valueing the lives of our own service members (and our own taxpayers that fund our military) over the lives of the Tutsi was in and of itself morally repugnant. He just glossed over the moral fact that we had nothing to do with the Tutsi V Hutu tribal wars that have been waged for over a century in Rwanda, that it was in fact a Belgium colony that the U.S. had nothing to do with (The Belgian UN troops pulled out hours before the genocide began to save the lives of Belgian soldiers) and there was literally no U.S. interest in inteferring. One could conceivably argue there was a humanitarian interest but if that's the case, that would be a rationale for colonizing and conquering the better part of the entire continent. White Man's Burden type thinking is not feasible.
The second thing that drove it home for me, is the novel U.S. embassy and state department protocal of pushing the LGBTQIA++ agenda outside our country. It used to be the highest and most cherished part of our diplomatic core that our American flag flew at all our embassies and consulates but in the last 15 years, it has become a gleeful, in-your-face and F your traditional morality move to shove the LGBTQIA++ rainbow flag (and even the transgender flag) in the faces of our hosts countries and then denounce them. It used to be that the gentle art of diplomacy avoided creating rifts where it need not be the focus. It is quite frankly, the opposite of diplomacy to fly that flag in a nation in which a strong majorityof the populace would react negatively. How it became our number one objective is beyond me.
About WWII: We didn't fight in mainland Europe until 1942 because our plan to wage war against Nazi Germany was originally to push the Nazis out of North Africa and then invade Italy and move north to Germany from there. We ended up moving to Germany from D-Day's beach landing in Normandy France to Germany instead. However, we did first land in North Africa so it's a bit misleading to say that we didn't actually react to Germany's war declaration. My personal opinion is that Germany was not the bigger threat because the chances of them being able to hold both the western and eastern front was always doomed but arguably, we didn't understand that at the time. Also, our involvement most certainly made the war of a much shorter duration and most definitely made it much less costly in terms of human lives. My point stands that Western Europe and the USSR would have eventually defeated Nazi Germany.
One more thing: Look up the Doolittle bombing run over Japan. FDR's initial target was Japan but we lacked the resources to do much but FDR did a symoblic bombing run on Japan called the Doolittle operation in which bombers, flew over japan, randomly dropped bombs and landed in China. FDR did not consider Germany the bigger threat militarily. Also compare the number of troops send to island hopping battles in the Pacific theatre verses North Africa. By far, we took the most casulaties in the first year of the war trying to island hop our way in Pacific. Today, we think the European theatre was the primary war because OMYGOSH HITLER! NAZIS! but in reality, the bulk of the U.S. involvement in World War II was the pacific theatre and we pretty much handled that almost entirely on our own. I don't mean to sound antisemitic but it's true....our media focused on the Holocaust and the European theatre for decades since the 1960's because of the Jewish presence in our media and because of our own eurocentric biases. In the aftermath of WWII though, before the 1960's, we were far more likely to retell and talk about the Pacific theatre because that's were the bulk of our forces served. That's also were we took most of our casulaties. See movies like the Fighting Sullivans, The Flying Tigers etc. It wasn't until the 1960's that our focus started emphasizing the European theatre.