Dear Joea - Americans over China pre WWII
 

I'd feel pretty comfindent that it did happen. But there is nothing wrong with it IMO. Just because China was at war with Japan pre Pearl Harbour (note: not pre ww2) doesn't mean the USA couldn't sell weapons and supplies to either nation.

Obviously Japan wouldn't be happy but back then the USA (and the allies) would have seen China as a more strategic ally due to the link with Russia and the war in Europe.

Before the USA entered WW2 many pilots flew for the RAF which is the same thing. It is also fact that some yanks fought for Germany which again isn't a bad thing, my own heritage is part German and without knowing how evil the Third Reich was I probably would have gone to fight for the fatherland. (If my mother wasn't English)

When it comes to suppling China with aircraft, one of the biggest events that caused the USA to join the Allies is because a Yankee ship got sunk by a German U-Boat because it was suspected that supplies were being transported.

I think the main thing here is that the USA views Pearl Harbour as an unwarrented attack on the USA but to be realistic Japan was being denied resources to fight China by America and unless they surrendered to China, there wasn't another choice. They needed the oil and other resources like rubber that indo china could supply. America and the British Commonwealth was aiding China by denying Japan those resources and Japan basically didn't take it kindly.

-Of course there is more to it but yeah... :88)

Aww a thread for me. :lol: Ok I went over the top yesterday, still I do take issue with your historical schema, you just seem to want to fit everything into this schema with sometimes, IMHO, shaky evidence. Other times you are on more solid ground so yea I agree with you (Spanish-American war, or this Iran thing for example). I just hate the attitude of "dude I learned the truth and am not a sheeple anymore like you guys" that's all.

The US is just like any other country, acting in their interest and willing to change policy, I don't see an eternal policy of hidden conspiracies guiding it any more than any other power. Context counts for a lot. In the context of what we are discussing, the US did not actively take sides in the Sino-Japanese war when it started in 1937 (though they always had an "Open Door" policy, even in the 19th Century when so many were getting foreign concessions) despite the bombing of the Panay and the Rape of Nanking etc.

In 1940-41 though, it seemed that the Axis was triumphant so the context changed. So far I think we agree on these facts. What I don't agree with you guys is the attitude that somehow the US just choose to piss off the Japanese who were involved in a quarrel with their neighbour so they could get into the war (in Europe especially, for which there was no guarantee, after all Hitler did not have to declare war on the US). While I do not want to overstate the moral element, I am always astounded as to how people forget that China actually comes in 2nd place after the USSR in total war dead. The aggression by the Japanese militarists was at least as bad as that of the Nazis in Poland, the last and I would say the worst of the series of humliations by foreign countries. I honestly think people forget that, just like they forget there were other victims of Nazism besides Jews.

Of course I do not think we should forget the nasty things the Allies did, and I do agree there were some bad questionable interventions by the US since then.

Anyway, peace.


P.S. Lord of the Rings still rocks.

I think we agree about more than we disagree
 

have a good day
:)

Dealing strictly with the Sino-Japanese war: the Chinese bought planes from anywhere they could get them, including American companies. They also hired mercenary pilots from wherever they could, and many of those were also Americans.

The same is true of the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War. American companies sold planes to whomever they could, and pilots flew for whoever paid the most, or whomever they liked. Doesn't mean the government was involved, even indirectly.

Of course it doesn't mean they weren't, either.

well Steve
 

Ok let's hit some fan
 

I don't think you read a word of what I wrote, that article mentions Robert Stinnett who has been thoroughly debunked. I have an excellent article that debunks him if you want me to send it to you. For example, no one ever realises there was no way to be sure the US would end up at war with Germany if it was at war with Japan. The Tripartite Pact only took direct attacks against a member as a reason to go to war. Really I don't know how to argue with someone who thinks he found the real truth (as if any thinking person imagined governments are clean not the point) and is so short on facts.

This situation goes with all accusations posted on a forum.

"Give me one theory, and I'll post 5 others that will debunk them."

Gotta love the internet and google. ;)

sorry Joea
 

Here is how I see the USA
 

You mean like the guy who claimed the US Navy shot down TWA flight 800?

Except this is an academic article published in Intelligence and National Security called "Stinnett's Day of Deceit: Pearl Harbour Revisionism" by John C. Zimmerman that exposes the shoddy work done by some of these authors including Stinnett quited in WS article. One point is there is no evidence that the Kido Butai broke radio silence, on the contrary there is a lot to indicate they did guard it. About the November 25th message I'd want to see if that is a genuine decoded message and the context it was decoded in. Now does anyone want to read it or not??

Another point, FDR could not be sure that war with Japan would lead to war with Germany, how could anyone be sure? That is speculation and really difficult to prove in any case.

I like the Wiki article on Zimmermans work:

Makes sense. If the object was indeed to get Germany to declare against us that would have been very well served by ambushing and destroying the Japanese fleet before it could attack.

so then the documents were false?