What if

[Accord]

I came across this and was curious to hear what FM had to say in response:

 

WHAT IF, Winston Churchill had launched a pre-emptive strike on the Third Reich and Adolph Hitler?

It would be a different world today, but he would probably be labled a 'War Monger.'

 

WHAT IF, the U.S. had launched a pre-emptive strike on Imperial Japan, before December 7, 1941?

It would be a different world, and we would be labled a 'War Monger.'

 

WHAT IF, the U.S. had launched a pre-emptive strike and took out Osama bin-laden BEFORE September 11th?

It would be a different world, and Bush would have been labeled a 'War Monger.'

[Flying_Mollusk]

I came across this and was curious to hear what FM had to say in response:

 

WHAT IF, Winston Churchill had launched a pre-emptive strike on the Third Reich and Adolph Hitler?

It would be a different world today, but he would probably be labled a 'War Monger.'

 

WHAT IF, the U.S. had launched a pre-emptive strike on Imperial Japan, before December 7, 1941?

It would be a different world, and we would be labled a 'War Monger.'

 

WHAT IF, the U.S. had launched a pre-emptive strike and took out Osama bin-laden BEFORE September 11th?

It would be a different world, and Bush would have been labeled a 'War Monger.'

778105[/snapback]

 

The problem with these hypos is that they treat history as if universal absolutles can be applied in every situation. I can easily respond witht this:

 

What if LBJ had let France clean up its own mess and not gotten involved in Vietnam? He would be labeled a peacenik. But a lot of US men would still be alive today and Vietnam would still have become communist, just as it did with our failed efforts. It still would be a poor ass nation and the Asian tigers would still become market forces.

 

 

By labelling all actions in such a manner, the writers of the hypos absolutley show a refusal to discuss history in its details and thats not good.

 

Now in response to each hypo, Ill deal with them with actual arguments rather than broad strokes.

 

1. I think the hypo means Chamberlain since he would be responsible for launching a pre-emptive strike. But the hypo isnt very clear on what is meant by a pre-emptive strike in this situation. Do they want a pre-emptive strike because of Germany breaching the Treaty of Versailles by introducing the concriptions or for the occupation of the Rhineland or for the growing Jewish massacre? The fact that the hypo doesnt clearly say shows why absolultes can be faulty. But I need to know which one it refers to.

 

In my opinion, Chamberlain did make a mistake. Im pretty sure a lot of people are with me on this, but once the Rhineland had been invaded and Hitler was mobilizing the German army, Chamberlain should NOT have engaged in appeasment. There was enough foundation for a clear threat and they shouldnt have given Hitler the time to continue arming himself. But this hardly can be considered a preemptive strike since Hitler had already acted. This situation is totally different than Bush. Details reveal the foolishness of that comparison.

 

2. This is revisionist history at its worst. Of course the direction of history would be different but whats the point? He wouldnt have been labeled a war monger. He would be labelled a internationalist. Republicans and fellow isolationists like Charlie Lindbergh would be screaming at the top of their throats that FDR cares more about foreigners in China and the Phillipines than he does about the US.

 

To compare WW2 to Iraq and Bush is unquestionably inappropriate. It really irks me when people compare WW2 to Iraq.

 

3. Interesting this is brought up. Who was claiming Clinton had no right to send our troops to foreign places to get killed, especially since he didnt serve? Its so easy to make claims in while in the blanket of the 9-11 tragedy. But again, this is more revisionist history.

[Das Texan]

Revisionist history is in many ways irresponsible history.

 

 

 

Its fine to ask the questions, but to draw absolutes is irresponsible.

[Dodge]

I came across this and was curious to hear what FM had to say in response:

 

WHAT IF, Winston Churchill had launched a pre-emptive strike on the Third Reich and Adolph Hitler?

It would be a different world today, but he would probably be labled a 'War Monger.'

 

He'd have also suffered a crushing defeat and the Russians and Germans would have collectively destroyed the world.

 

WHAT IF, the U.S. had launched a pre-emptive strike on Imperial Japan, before December 7, 1941?

It would be a different world, and we would be labled a 'War Monger.'

 

We would have also lost, just as we did during the first year and a half of the Pacific War. Japan would have beaten us and we'd have a lot less territories and assets in the Pacific right now.

 

WHAT IF, the U.S. had launched a pre-emptive strike and took out Osama bin-laden BEFORE September 11th?

It would be a different world, and Bush would have been labeled a 'War Monger.'

 

 

We did, more or less, but the Clinton Administration didn't invest much time in this, in spite of the fact that two of our embassies in Africa had been leveled.