History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

[Kepler]

Very cool. Thank you, St. Clown.

[St. Clown]

On this day in 1841, former President John Q. Adams argued to the US Supreme Court on behalf of captured slaves in the Amistad case. In 1839, La Amistad, a Spanish slave ship, had been sailing from Havana, Cuba, to Port-Au-Prince with slave cargo to be sold. During the voyage, the slaves, who had been free men captured in Sierra Leone, rebelled, killing the ship's captain and cook. The Africans ordered the ship's crew to sail them back to Africa, but instead the ship sailed north and was captured by the U.S. Navy off the coast of NY; the Africans were then arrested for murder. Spain claimed rights to the ship and its cargo, but abolitionists hired JQA to defend the prisoners. JQA's argument lasted 8.5 hours, spanning two days in court, countering the US Government attorney's argument that the treaty with Spain should override US principals of individual rights. The court ruled in favor of returning the Africans to their native land.


**Lifted from This Day in History desktop calendar.

[St. Clown]

On this day in 1960, Ebbets Field was demolished.

[dxmnkd316]

Started Supernova in the East (Hardcore History). First episode was excellent as always.

[joecct]

US was isolated
Who didn’t get into the League of Nations?

Better phrasing - who chose not to join the LoN.

[mookie1995]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

US was isolated
Who didn’t get into the League of Nations?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

We should have done more to help England earlier on in the war.

Edit: we also could have done a lot more to shut down the concentration camps too. Bombing rail lines and things like that.

I'm pretty sure we didn't know the full extent of the concentration camps until we were nearing the final chapters of the war.

Also, the war needed to be won first. Back then, you didn't put the entire theater at risk by spending lives and resources to stop something that wasn't well understood and wasn't critical to the war effort. As sh-tty as that sounds, imagine if we had diverted resources and it delayed winning the war by months or even years. Or worse, imagine if we had devoted significant resources to that and we lost the war. It's the same reason why the Enigma codebreakers allowed hundreds or even thousands of civilians to be killed on merchant ships. They knew you don't risk the war to save a few. You could go even further down this line of thought and think about the ramifications of ending the war in the Pacific with nuclear weapons. Allied Forces had estimated 750,000 Allied casualties and another two years to complete the Invasion of Japan. Do you kill 200,000 people on their side or nearly a million on our side and who knows how many million soldiers and civilians on Japan's? But I completely digress.

Also, I think there's a bit of revisionist history in why we had delayed getting involved in the war. I think 70 years ago, the horrors of WWI were still fresh in the minds of the nation. We were very reluctant to go hot in another continental war. In retrospect, yeah, we should have. But 70 years ago we weren't exactly eager to get involved in another conflict that could cost us a significant amount of money (WWI cost us somewhere between $0.25 trillion and $1 trillion in 2018 dollars) and lives (117,000). From the time the war started until we got involved, even if we had gotten involved in the war on day one, however you define that, it would have taken us months to mobilize for war. We had already begun to mobilize well before we actually declared war on Japan. To start that mobilization on 9/1/1939 it would have taken until spring at a minimum to organize the draft (1940 was the first peacetime conscription law passed in the US) and build up the machinery necessary. Even with the neutral stance for so long and the pre-war mobilization efforts, the US still couldn't enter the western theater until 11 months after Pearl Harbor.

Honestly, I think we probably made the right calls at the time. We can argue about it, but it would take a very compelling argument to convince me otherwise.

[joecct]

We should have done more to help England earlier on in the war.

Edit: we also could have done a lot more to shut down the concentration camps too. Bombing rail lines and things like that.

Roosevelt was dealing with an isolationist country. It took Pearl Harbor to end it.

As to the concentration camps, Herman Wouck wrote about the "will not to believe." I believe a large segment of the allied governments did not believe the Nazis had industrialized genocide.

[Drew S.]

Other than the Japanese internment camps...I'm not sure what he's talking about

We should have done more to help England earlier on in the war.

Edit: we also could have done a lot more to shut down the concentration camps too. Bombing rail lines and things like that.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

I've read about, and learned about WWII quite a bit, and this is the first I've ever heard anyone take this kind of stance. It is truly baffling how someone could come to this kind of conclusion.

Other than the Japanese internment camps...I'm not sure what he's talking about

[bigblue_dl]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

I don’t think either of the World Wars are taught very well here. I’ve spent a fair amount of time reading on WWII this year and honestly it makes me a bit ashamed of our country.

I've read about, and learned about WWII quite a bit, and this is the first I've ever heard anyone take this kind of stance. It is truly baffling how someone could come to this kind of conclusion.

[joecct]

I don’t think either of the World Wars are taught very well here. I’ve spent a fair amount of time reading on WWII this year and honestly it makes me a bit ashamed of our country.

Why?

[Drew S.]

JUst got done with Episode III.

It's hard not to listen to the story of the western front and not be moved to tears when hearing the true horrors of World War I. We all know the atrocities of WWII, but I didn't know just how horrifying the trench warfare and gas attacks of WWI were. I was listening in my car and when I got to the store I had to just sit there and contemplate what I had just heard. It's enough to make someone ill. When he described the spongy floors of the trenches due to the bodies that had been abandoned there, I was just numb.

I don’t think either of the World Wars are taught very well here. I’ve spent a fair amount of time reading on WWII this year and honestly it makes me a bit ashamed of our country.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

JUst got done with Episode III.

It's hard not to listen to the story of the western front and not be moved to tears when hearing the true horrors of World War I. We all know the atrocities of WWII, but I didn't know just how horrifying the trench warfare and gas attacks of WWI were. I was listening in my car and when I got to the store I had to just sit there and contemplate what I had just heard. It's enough to make someone ill. When he described the spongy floors of the trenches due to the bodies that had been abandoned there, I was just numb.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: History - questioning the winners and how we arrived at this point

Blueprint for Armageddon is the name of the series about WWI...

oops, I'm getting it confused with The Destroyer of Worlds.