CLDL Grand Final - Winner Take All Three Way Dance.

[FromTheSouth]

This thread is for IC, TDigle, and Tastycakes only.

Which pair of mortal enemies has effected the course of history the most?

Tasty is British, so he gets Churchill and Hitler
IC is American so he gets Bush and Bib Laden
TDigle is Japanese for the sake of this debate, so he gets Hirohito and FDR.

Anyone can go first, touch gloves, and come out fighting.

GD
TM
and myself will be judging.

This thread will be open for 168.5 hours.

 

[Tastycles]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am here to explain that the most important pair of adversaries in the history of the earth are none other than Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler.

Between them, and their actions, the course of world history changed beyond all recognition and there is hardly anything at all in the history of the last 70 years that did not in some way relate to them and their actions. There is literally too much to cover it all, but I shall begin with the obvious stuff first.

The existence of the other two couples is dependant on Hitler and Churchill

This is unquestionably true. Anything that the other two groups changed on the world scene is reliant on these. Without Hitler and Churchill there wouldn't have been a second world war for FDR and Horohito to be on opposite sides of. Without Hitler and Churchill, there wouldn't have needed to be an independant Jewish state in the middle east, and the problems that have followed that - those that allowed for the rise for Bin Laden. As a result, it will be very difficult for either of my opponents to argue their points. However, I shall now try and anticipate some of the rival arguments, and then discredit them.

The Nuclear Bomb

Pretty much the only thing that the FDR - Horohito rivalry has going for it is that it resulted in the atomic bomb, however, the routes of this actually come from Hitler and Churchill. The vast majority of the scientists that made the atomic bomb on the Manhattan Project where European Jews. It goes without saying that without Hitler they wouldn't be there, and indeed many only joined because they were afraid that Hitler was making a bomb. Indeed, it wasonly used on Japan because Germany had already surrendered, not to mention the fact that it was Truman, and not Roosevelt, who was in charge. Where does Churchill come into all of this? Well, you try crossing the Atlantic during the war without the Royal Navy. So, as we can see, the Nuclear bomb has as many roots in the relationship of Hitler and Churchill as it did between the nations that actually used them.

A New War Order

Perhaps more than anything else, the relationship between Bush and Bin Laden changed the way that wars were fought. Bin Laden put a plane into a tower, and now fights with guerillas in mountain countries, and the day of battles as we knew it before are over. This is true. However, Hitler and Churchill invented something far, far more cynical between them.

A stray bomb in 1940 missed the factory it was intended for, the British retaliated by bombing Berlin and the Blitz began. London was bombed on a regular basis, along with several other British cities. The same happened to the Germans. In short, attacking civilians had become a tool of war in a manner that had never been seen before.

Having seen that the principal arguments of my opponents are non-starters, I shall now briefly make two more points in favour of my argument.

The sun sets on the British Empire

It used to be a fact that the Sun never set on the British empire. What also used to be a fact is that the vast majority of the world was controlled from Europe. In 1940, when Churchill came to power there were 2 independant countries in Africa and none in the Caribbean, now there are over 60. Basically the actions of Hitler, and Churchill's reaction to it led to a widespread decolonization of the world. In the time since then we have seen the face of the world change immeasurably. The world had less than 100 sovereign states in 1940, now it has 200.

War by media

Bit of an abstract one this, so bear with me. So there was a war in the 1940s, and everyone is aware of what happened during it. What's special about that war, and all the wars since is that people at the time knew what was happening. Both Hitler and Churchill addressed their respective nations frequently in order to boost morale. This had never been done before. Imagine not knowing anything at all about the Iraq war, because that is what it would have been like without these two men. Both were fiercely charismatic, and both were able to rouse the support of a nation to a point hitherto never seen. Both Hitler and Churchill had immense public support for what they were doing, and part of that was due to the large scale propaganda campaign by each man.

That is the conclusion of my opening arguments within this debate, and I await the response of my opponents with great interest.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Tastycles made a terrific post, and needless to say, the relationship between Hitler and Churchill is historically significant. As important as it is, however, I must say that I truly believe that the Bush / bin Laden dynamic is more impactful, and despite being in a more infantile stage as compared to the pairings of my opponents, the amount of world wide significance the Bush / bin Lader relationship has had in that shorter time frame is nothing that can be easilly dismissed.

The Pre-existing Relationship

Much ado has been made about the business relationship the Bush family had with the bin Laden family in the years leading up to the central point to my debate - 9/11. Now I don't want to dive too deep into the purported relationships and conspiracy theories that are out there - Google "Bush and bin Laden" and numerous potential theories come up - but there has been significant evidence linking the Bush family to the profit from Middle East munitions and oil dealings. Plus, it's a fact that the US was one of the largest suppliers of weapons and ammo to the Middle East in the 1980's.

The pre-existing relationships between the two men's families adds such a unique and dangerous wrinkle to this issue. It threatened the fabric of the American system and cast into doubt everything a US President had done.

9/11

My opponent, Tastycles, brings up the Atomic Bomb event, which was a US attack on Japan and can be traced to either FDR or Churchill, certainly. I will argue that the 9/11 attacks are today's version of the atomic bomb, although the devistation cased by the a-Bomb was greater. The idea that US security was breached and that our own planes were used against us in the 9/11 terrorist attacks is disconcerting and downright terrifying. I was in college at the time, and those attacks changed everything instantly. The way Americans live their lives has been drastically altered, from airports to bridges and tunnels to business.

Media and Internal Discourse

My opponent brings up a terrific point about how the media was used in World War 2 to boost morale in respective countries. With the Bush / bin Laden conflict, however, the media is more pervasive than ever before. The firestorm of controversy that Fox News has been under for 10 years now is amazing, and the fact that the media helped determine the outcome of the 2000 Presidential Election was just a harbinger of how the public opinion of the war would be shaped by the media itself.

The argument of "reliance"

By arguing that his position is superior due to the idea that none of the other two positions could exist without the Hitler / Churchill relationship is naive. One could loosely make that determination with Hirohito and FDR, but to say the Bush / bin Laden conflict would have never happened without Churchill and Hitler is far too dismissive and just contains too much conjecture for my liking.

Even if we assumed that were true, however, just because one event paves the way for another doesn't mean the latter event cannot be more significant than the former. The way the United Nations was divided following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, causing Bush to rebuke them and declare war anyway was a major controversy in the early '00's. Just because Hitler ignored the appeasement policies of England and the US early on doesn't mean anything with Bush and bin Laden would be any different.

Rather than going any further, I am awaiting TDigs' contribution, or if he's feeling up to it, Tasty's rebuttal.

 

[Tastycles]

The first of my opponents has opened the floor, and I feel that it would be wise to answer it immediately, rather than wait for my other opponent, to avoid any confusion.

The Pre-existing Relationship

Much ado has been made about the business relationship the Bush family had with the bin Laden family in the years leading up to the central point to my debate - 9/11. Now I don't want to dive too deep into the purported relationships and conspiracy theories that are out there - Google "Bush and bin Laden" and numerous potential theories come up - but there has been significant evidence linking the Bush family to the profit from Middle East munitions and oil dealings. Plus, it's a fact that the US was one of the largest suppliers of weapons and ammo to the Middle East in the 1980's.

The pre-existing relationships between the two men's families adds such a unique and dangerous wrinkle to this issue. It threatened the fabric of the American system and cast into doubt everything a US President had done.

I'm sorry, but this point is ridiculous. They knew each other in the 80s, so somehow they are historically significant? No. There have been relations between Britain and Germany since Germany started to exist in 1871. There were relations between Hitler and the UK before the war and during the war. Hitler sent Hess to try and negotiate a peace deal in 1940, precisely because he felt that his and Churchill's political philosphies weren't a million miles apart. Hitler and Churchill met personally, a claim that cannot be made for Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush.

The US may have supplied weapons to the Middle East in the 1980s, but that isn't anything to do with either Bin Laden or George Bush, neither of whom held commanding roles at the time. The reason Hitler was able to do anything like the amount he did in terms of troop and prisoner movement is directy attributable to the vast railway network. The railways of Germany were a British export. However, this has nothing to do with the relationship between Hitler and Churchill in the same way that the weapons given to Afghanistan had nothing to do with Bush and Bin Laden.

9/11

My opponent, Tastycles, brings up the Atomic Bomb event, which was a US attack on Japan and can be traced to either FDR or Churchill, certainly. I will argue that the 9/11 attacks are today's version of the atomic bomb, although the devistation cased by the a-Bomb was greater. The idea that US security was breached and that our own planes were used against us in the 9/11 terrorist attacks is disconcerting and downright terrifying. I was in college at the time, and those attacks changed everything instantly. The way Americans live their lives has been drastically altered, from airports to bridges and tunnels to business.

The changes made in America completely pale into insignificance when one considers the changes brought into British and German society by the actions of Churchill and Hitler. In America, you have to go through security for domestic flights, something that affects the majority of the population less than two or three times a year, and something that is a minor irritation.

To say Americans are in fear now may be true, but it is hardly the same as spending every single night underground for three years as most of the people from East London were forced to do throughout the Blitz. In lasting terms, the direct consequence of the war was that women in Britain began to work for the first time. That's huge, half the population's way of life changed in a matter of years. Not to mention the other social changes that were brought about by the war, most notably the welfare state. Free education, health care and social security individually make up more of a difference than all of the changes in the USA put together; when you put them together, the changes in the US are completely irrelevant.

Media and Internal Discourse

My opponent brings up a terrific point about how the media was used in World War 2 to boost morale in respective countries. With the Bush / bin Laden conflict, however, the media is more pervasive than ever before. The firestorm of controversy that Fox News has been under for 10 years now is amazing, and the fact that the media helped determine the outcome of the 2000 Presidential Election was just a harbinger of how the public opinion of the war would be shaped by the media itself.

The final sentence in this paragraph says it all really, and we don't need any further insight. The media is the harbringer of the Bush-Bin Laden relationship, without the media, that relationship would be the governor of Texas and a rich terrorist. The media made it what it was. Hitler and Churchill on the otherhand made the media what it was, that's the difference.

The argument of "reliance"

By arguing that his position is superior due to the idea that none of the other two positions could exist without the Hitler / Churchill relationship is naive. One could loosely make that determination with Hirohito and FDR, but to say the Bush / bin Laden conflict would have never happened without Churchill and Hitler is far too dismissive and just contains too much conjecture for my liking.

One could completely make the determination with both. If one wants to deny that the problems that caused radical islam to target the US, then yes, one can deny the contribution of Hitler and Churchill. It's not the only factor, but it is certainly important.

Even if we assumed that were true, however, just because one event paves the way for another doesn't mean the latter event cannot be more significant than the former. The way the United Nations was divided following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, causing Bush to rebuke them and declare war anyway was a major controversy in the early '00's. Just because Hitler ignored the appeasement policies of England and the US early on doesn't mean anything with Bush and bin Laden would be any different.

If dividing the UN is a big deal, then being the reason that the UN was formed is surely a bigger deal. Bush and Bin Laden isn'tthe reason Bush went into Iraq anyway, whether you tow the party line on that or not. Bush and Bin Laden have undoubtedy shaped the last ten years more than any other duo, but in the course of history as a whole, there can be no argument that Churchill and Hitler were the biggest influence of the three couples mentioned.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The relationship between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Emperor Shōwa/Hirohito, and the diplomatic relations between the US and Japan in general, have greatly affected the course of history. In fact, it could be argued that no other relationship was more significant during the middle of the 20th century. This post examines this relationship and analyzes both its short- and long-term effects.

Short-term Effects

Without Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, the US does not enter World War II: I am not here to debate whether or not the Allied forces would have defeated the Axis without the involvement of the US, but it's undeniable that Pearl Harbor made World War II a truly global affair. Both of my opponents have stated that the relationship between President Roosevelt and Emperor Hirohito was dependent on the one between Prime Minister Churchill and Chancellor Hitler, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Sure, the US' declaration of war on Japan behooved Germany to declare war on the US due to the terms of the Tripartite Pact, but the precipitation of war in the Pacific had nothing to do with anything happening on the European continent.

Without this hostile relationship, nuclear weapons aren't used offensively: To date, the only two nuclear weapons used offensively were the ones dropped by the US on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August 1945 and 9 August 1945, respectively. I can't even begin to discuss the ramifications of these bombings; suffice it to say, these bombings played no small part in global hysteria associated with the Cold War.

Long-term Effects

Post-war Japan embraces defeat and its occupation by the US heralds unprecedented economic prosperity: While not directly appointed by President Roosevelt to oversee Japan's post-war occupation, no other American plays a more important role in Japan's post-war history than General Douglas MacArthur. With his decision to not try Emperor Hirohito for war crimes, MacArthur provided Japan with continuity and left one of its most sacred institutions intact. Under MacArthur's relatively benevolent guidance, Japan makes a quick recovery and becomes an independent state once again in 1952. Following its occupation, Japan ascends the rungs of success to become the second largest economy in the world. Without MacArthur's leadership and attitude towards the Emperor, it is wholly possible that Japan's would not have subsequently had such good fortune.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The existence of the other two couples is dependant on Hitler and Churchill

This is unquestionably true. Anything that the other two groups changed on the world scene is reliant on these. Without Hitler and Churchill there wouldn't have been a second world war for FDR and Horohito to be on opposite sides of. Without Hitler and Churchill, there wouldn't have needed to be an independant Jewish state in the middle east, and the problems that have followed that - those that allowed for the rise for Bin Laden. As a result, it will be very difficult for either of my opponents to argue their points. However, I shall now try and anticipate some of the rival arguments, and then discredit them.

War in the Pacific was inevitable regardless of what went on between Churchill and Hitler, or the British and German states. And, without the Pacific, or North Africa for that matter, there wouldn't have been enough continental coverage to call World War II "World War II."

The Nuclear Bomb

Pretty much the only thing that the FDR - Horohito rivalry has going for it is that it resulted in the atomic bomb, however, the routes of this actually come from Hitler and Churchill. The vast majority of the scientists that made the atomic bomb on the Manhattan Project where European Jews. It goes without saying that without Hitler they wouldn't be there, and indeed many only joined because they were afraid that Hitler was making a bomb. Indeed, it wasonly used on Japan because Germany had already surrendered, not to mention the fact that it was Truman, and not Roosevelt, who was in charge. Where does Churchill come into all of this? Well, you try crossing the Atlantic during the war without the Royal Navy. So, as we can see, the Nuclear bomb has as many roots in the relationship of Hitler and Churchill as it did between the nations that actually used them.

Wait...Oppenheimer wasn't an expatriate. Also, I'm pretty sure any Jewish expatriates that helped on the Manhattan Project left before Churchill succeeded Chamberlain in 1940.

The sun sets on the British Empire

It used to be a fact that the Sun never set on the British empire. What also used to be a fact is that the vast majority of the world was controlled from Europe. In 1940, when Churchill came to power there were 2 independant countries in Africa and none in the Caribbean, now there are over 60. Basically the actions of Hitler, and Churchill's reaction to it led to a widespread decolonization of the world. In the time since then we have seen the face of the world change immeasurably. The world had less than 100 sovereign states in 1940, now it has 200.

If anything, the push for decolonization came from the defeat of all the Axis Powers. Also, I'd argue that the impetus for mass decolonization came from the Cold War rather than the one we are discussing.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The argument of "reliance"

By arguing that his position is superior due to the idea that none of the other two positions could exist without the Hitler / Churchill relationship is naive. One could loosely make that determination with Hirohito and FDR, but to say the Bush / bin Laden conflict would have never happened without Churchill and Hitler is far too dismissive and just contains too much conjecture for my liking.

Even if we assumed that were true, however, just because one event paves the way for another doesn't mean the latter event cannot be more significant than the former. The way the United Nations was divided following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, causing Bush to rebuke them and declare war anyway was a major controversy in the early '00's. Just because Hitler ignored the appeasement policies of England and the US early on doesn't mean anything with Bush and bin Laden would be any different.

Rather than going any further, I am awaiting TDigs' contribution, or if he's feeling up to it, Tasty's rebuttal.

Although I am most definitely late to the dance, and I have no problem with either you or Tastycles taking the crown home, I hope I can make one thing certain here: WAR IN THE PACIFIC WAS INEVITABLE WITH OR WITHOUT ADOLF HITLER.

In fact, if you want to get pedantic about it, you could consider World War II an umbrella term for two actual wars that were linked only in the fact that the Tripartite Pact required Germany and Italy to come to the aid of Japan should anyone declare war on her (and vice-versa). Also, it can be argued that war was inevitable between Japan and the Western world with the Meiji Restoration of 1868; by this time, it was not a question "Will it happen?," but "When will it happen?"

While I can't argue with you over the impact the Bush-bin Laden relationship has had on contemporary affairs, I can tell you both that the relationship between Churchill and Hitler had only a minimal bearing on the relationship between FDR and Hirohito and that it still remains to be seen whether or not the Bush-bin Laden relationship has as much of a long-lasting effect on history as the FDR-Hirohito relationship.

 

[Tastycles]

I'm aware that this should have ended yesterday, but the forums crash prevented my response, so I shall respond now anyway. I don't really mind if this counts or not. In this post I shall address the points of my other opponent.

Short-term Effects

Without Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, the US does not enter World War II: I am not here to debate whether or not the Allied forces would have defeated the Axis without the involvement of the US, but it's undeniable that Pearl Harbor made World War II a truly global affair. Both of my opponents have stated that the relationship between President Roosevelt and Emperor Hirohito was dependent on the one between Prime Minister Churchill and Chancellor Hitler, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Sure, the US' declaration of war on Japan behooved Germany to declare war on the US due to the terms of the Tripartite Pact, but the precipitation of war in the Pacific had nothing to do with anything happening on the European continent.

Not really. The Japanese had fought Britain in Singapore long before the Americans entered the fray, and the US was already giving aid to Europe. Not to mention the fact that there were colonies of both Britain and France in Asia at war with Japan, and the fact that the Germans had occupied northern Africa meant that the war was being fought in all three of the old world continents way before Pearl Harbour.

Without this hostile relationship, nuclear weapons aren't used offensively: To date, the only two nuclear weapons used offensively were the ones dropped by the US on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August 1945 and 9 August 1945, respectively. I can't even begin to discuss the ramifications of these bombings; suffice it to say, these bombings played no small part in global hysteria associated with the Cold War.

Except they didn't play any part in the Cold War hysteria. Firstly, there was far more hype around the televised tests than there was around the bombs in Japan. Secondly, the bombs in Japan were nothing like the bombs that would have come in the Cold War and thirdly, and most saliently, the fact that the Soviets had the bomb too is what led to the hysteria. As far as I'm aware, neither Horohito nor Roosevelt were leader of the Soviet Union.

Long-term Effects

Post-war Japan embraces defeat and its occupation by the US heralds unprecedented economic prosperity: While not directly appointed by President Roosevelt to oversee Japan's post-war occupation, no other American plays a more important role in Japan's post-war history than General Douglas MacArthur. With his decision to not try Emperor Hirohito for war crimes, MacArthur provided Japan with continuity and left one of its most sacred institutions intact. Under MacArthur's relatively benevolent guidance, Japan makes a quick recovery and becomes an independent state once again in 1952. Following its occupation, Japan ascends the rungs of success to become the second largest economy in the world. Without MacArthur's leadership and attitude towards the Emperor, it is wholly possible that Japan's would not have subsequently had such good fortune.

Right. I'm willing to overlok the fact that MacArthur had nothing to do with Roosevelt, if you also accept the fact that West Germany was the work of Churchill. It was independent sooner, and became a major player on the world stage sooner, and it is a bigger power house today. Of course, Churchill had absolutely nothing to do with it's inception other than the fact he was the predecessor to the people that were, but the same applies to Roosevelt.

War in the Pacific was inevitable regardless of what went on between Churchill and Hitler, or the British and German states. And, without the Pacific, or North Africa for that matter, there wouldn't have been enough continental coverage to call World War II "World War II."

Exactly. Hitler and Churchill were fighting in both Africa and Europe. Hitler was fighting Stalin in Asia and Churchill was fighting Horohito in Japan, the overage was there.The term world war refers to the participants, not the battlefields. World War 1 was fought in an area that covered less than half of Belgium and a tiny corner of France on the Western Front, Italy, and Poland.

Wait...Oppenheimer wasn't an expatriate. Also, I'm pretty sure any Jewish expatriates that helped on the Manhattan Project left before Churchill succeeded Chamberlain in 1940.

I'll concede this, they were working on the bomb to stop Hitler though, not Horohito.

If anything, the push for decolonization came from the defeat of all the Axis Powers. Also, I'd argue that the impetus for mass decolonization came from the Cold War rather than the one we are discussing.

Absolutely wrong. The first acts of decolonisation were set in motion long before VJ Day, which would suggest your first premise is wrong. The fact that India, by far the biggest country to be decolonised, was independent before the Berlin Airlift and before the USSR had nuclear weapons. Indeed, the events that set that particular piece of decolonisation in motion took place during the war.

Although I am most definitely late to the dance, and I have no problem with either you or Tastycles taking the crown home, I hope I can make one thing certain here: WAR IN THE PACIFIC WAS INEVITABLE WITH OR WITHOUT ADOLF HITLER.

This is not true. There is no way that Japan would have attacked America without knowing that doing so would force the Americans into getting involved in Europe. The Japanese had been on "our" side during the First World War, and it was the fact that they chose Hitler as an ally that led to the events in the Pacific panning out the way they did.

In fact, if you want to get pedantic about it, you could consider World War II an umbrella term for two actual wars that were linked only in the fact that the Tripartite Pact required Germany and Italy to come to the aid of Japan should anyone declare war on her (and vice-versa). Also, it can be argued that war was inevitable between Japan and the Western world with the Meiji Restoration of 1868; by this time, it was not a question "Will it happen?," but "When will it happen?"

Right, but Japan had already been at war with Germany, Austro-Hungary and Stalin's Russia, if you want to call that the west for this purpose. The Japanese entered the war long before the Americans did by attacking British held Singapore and French Indochina, modern day Vietnam. The only reason they could do that is because the British and French armies were too busy fighting Hitler in Europe to send reinforcements. Perhaps it was inevitable that Japan would fight the west, it was not inevitable that they would fight the Americans in particular until Hitler gave them the keys to Pacific domination by bogging down the French, British and Dutch elsewhere.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Not really. The Japanese had fought Britain in Singapore long before the Americans entered the fray, and the US was already giving aid to Europe. Not to mention the fact that there were colonies of both Britain and France in Asia at war with Japan, and the fact that the Germans had occupied northern Africa meant that the war was being fought in all three of the old world continents way before Pearl Harbour.

How does a day after the bombings of Pearl Harbor count as "long before Americans entered the fray?" Japan declared war on Britain and America on the same day (8 December 1941). I'll concede the point on North Africa, but it's undeniable that war in the Pacific without the US would have been severely delayed, if fought at all.

Except they didn't play any part in the Cold War hysteria. Firstly, there was far more hype around the televised tests than there was around the bombs in Japan. Secondly, the bombs in Japan were nothing like the bombs that would have come in the Cold War and thirdly, and most saliently, the fact that the Soviets had the bomb too is what led to the hysteria. As far as I'm aware, neither Horohito nor Roosevelt were leader of the Soviet Union.

How did these bombs not play any part in Cold War hysteria? Do you have logs of the airings of all television stations in the US? Were the bombings in Nagasaki and Hiroshima events that weren't widely covered by telejournalists? Did a widely-read book by John Hersey not come out one year after the war ended about the bombing of Hiroshima? The human devastation wrought by the use of atomic weaponry undoubtedly played a part in Cold War hysteria.

Right. I'm willing to overlok the fact that MacArthur had nothing to do with Roosevelt, if you also accept the fact that West Germany was the work of Churchill. It was independent sooner, and became a major player on the world stage sooner, and it is a bigger power house today. Of course, Churchill had absolutely nothing to do with it's inception other than the fact he was the predecessor to the people that were, but the same applies to Roosevelt.

This is fine by me, as precedence and quickness only have an indirect bearing on this debate. Also, how would you define "bigger powerhouse?" Japan has a larger economy (as measured by GDP) than Germany. I'll admit that Germany is a powerhouse in the European Union, but I don't think they're any more significant than Japan on the world stage.

Exactly. Hitler and Churchill were fighting in both Africa and Europe. Hitler was fighting Stalin in Asia and Churchill was fighting Horohito in Japan, the overage was there.The term world war refers to the participants, not the battlefields. World War 1 was fought in an area that covered less than half of Belgium and a tiny corner of France on the Western Front, Italy, and Poland.

Wasn't the term World War II retroactively applied? Actually, I'm not going to argue this point, as it would almost certainly lead to a argument over semantics.

Absolutely wrong. The first acts of decolonisation were set in motion long before VJ Day, which would suggest your first premise is wrong. The fact that India, by far the biggest country to be decolonised, was independent before the Berlin Airlift and before the USSR had nuclear weapons. Indeed, the events that set that particular piece of decolonisation in motion took place during the war.

How is this wrong? When did the majority of the second wave of democratization take place? I'll concede the point of it beginning during World War II, but it didn't end in 1945; it actually continued on into the 1960s.

This is not true. There is no way that Japan would have attacked America without knowing that doing so would force the Americans into getting involved in Europe. The Japanese had been on "our" side during the First World War, and it was the fact that they chose Hitler as an ally that led to the events in the Pacific panning out the way they did.

What I said IS true: war in the Pacific would have been inevitable with or without Hitler. The drive for East Asian dominance on the part of the Japanese Empire had nothing to do with Hitler. Sure, without Hitler, Japan may not have been so brazen, but war was going to happen eventually given Western interests in those portions of Asia that Japan was so determined to take for herself.

 

[Tastycles]

So, we continue with the debate aout the world war.

How does a day after the bombings of Pearl Harbor count as "long before Americans entered the fray?" Japan declared war on Britain and America on the same day (8 December 1941). I'll concede the point on North Africa, but it's undeniable that war in the Pacific without the US would have been severely delayed, if fought at all.

I shall apologise for implying that Singapore was a long time before Pearl Harbour, I thought it was, but it wasn't. What it was though was the same day, and because of time zones, earlier than the bombing raid. What that means is that Japan obviously had intent to goafter Britain with or without the US. It is the date after Pearl Harbour because Hawaii is a long old time behind Singapore. Singapore came first, but not as early as I thought.

How did these bombs not play any part in Cold War hysteria? Do you have logs of the airings of all television stations in the US? Were the bombings in Nagasaki and Hiroshima events that weren't widely covered by telejournalists? Did a widely-read book by John Hersey not come out one year after the war ended about the bombing of Hiroshima? The human devastation wrought by the use of atomic weaponry undoubtedly played a part in Cold War hysteria.

I'm sure that those things played a part in the hysteria, but seeing as that book and those TV films came out before there was any true Cold War to speak of. The bomb that dropped on Nagasaki was 20 kilotons. The bombs that would have gone off in the Cold War were over a 1,000 times as large. I'm sure there was talk of Nagasaki, but it had about as much relevance as evidence on how the Cold War would have played out as the bombing of Berlin had on Hiroshima - not that much. There were few films of the actual bombings and even fewer of the effect on the ground.

This is fine by me, as precedence and quickness only have an indirect bearing on this debate. Also, how would you define "bigger powerhouse?" Japan has a larger economy (as measured by GDP) than Germany. I'll admit that Germany is a powerhouse in the European Union, but I don't think they're any more significant than Japan on the world stage.

I would say that it probably is. Germany has a larger GDP per capita, which is what is usually used in such measurings. It is the dominant player in the EU, but otherwise they share a fairly similar level on the economic stage. Japan is playing second fiddle to China in its part of the world, while Germany isn't. Not to mention the fact that Germ

Wasn't the term World War II retroactively applied? Actually, I'm not going to argue this point, as it would almost certainly lead to a argument over semantics.

I don't believe so, it may have been, but I'm happy to leave it there. World War 1 was certainly retroactively applied.

How is this wrong? When did the majority of the second wave of democratization take place? I'll concede the point of it beginning during World War II, but it didn't end in 1945; it actually continued on into the 1960s.

I know it did, but that was more due to the countries being in a position to fend for themselves rather than because it was the Cold War. The reason the Empire was broken up was because the war had cost too much to maintain it and in part as a reward for the sacrifices made by people in the colonies for the war effort.

What I said IS true: war in the Pacific would have been inevitable with or without Hitler. The drive for East Asian dominance on the part of the Japanese Empire had nothing to do with Hitler. Sure, without Hitler, Japan may not have been so brazen, but war was going to happen eventually given Western interests in those portions of Asia that Japan was so determined to take for herself.

Maybe this is true, but it doesn't really help your argument. If the Japanese invasion of allied colonies in East Asia was inevitable, then it means that the relationship between Roosevelt and Horohito had no impact on it either. It's true that Japan started invading China and Korea before both Hitler and FDR came into power, it's also true that they didn't invade the British, French and Dutch colonies until Hitler had each of those countries pined down. Their Imperial aims were completely independant of the relationship between Horohito and FDR, and that of Churchill and Hitler, but the difference is that had it not been for the former relationship, their aims could never have been met. War in the PAcific may have been inevitable, but it wouldn't have happened the way it did without Churchill and Hitler.

 

[FromTheSouth]

What a great job guys.

I want to make a few points before I give my decision.

First of all, I agree with TDigle that war in the Pacific was inevitable with or without Hitler. The motivations for the Japnese battle went far beyond the Tripartite act, and had to do with 19th century whale hunting and a bad trade deal. But, that wasn't really the point of the debate. I think that Tasty's point of interdependence in the relationships fails there.

I think Tasty does make an interesting point that the Churchill/Hitler pair is what caused the sun to set on England. The British empire was still going strong, but, after that war, colonialism faded, and the British faded, giving rise to the Americans. At this point, the existence of Israel, and America, the world's most powerful nation, endorsing Israel and providing it with military support is what makes American such a big target. Secondly, the idea that war being conducted through the media has helped Bush and bin Laden stay in the public consciousness, the same way Churchill and Hitler did.

I like IC's stance that his pair have changed everything that has been established from World War II. I wish he would have hammered this home more, but I do concede that our lives changed after 9/11, and that almost everything that happens is a result of Bush/bin Laden. That being said, how necessary is Bush in this equation. Churchill and Hitler's rivalry intensified World War II. FDR had to embargo Japan over Japan's actions against Americans. Would any other President have handled bin Laden differently? The planning for the attacks started during Clinton's term. bin Laden had alreadt tried to attack the World Trade Center. None of this was said, specifically, so it doesn't matter, but I would have liked to have seen it said. In the end, I think that basis for all social programs, the changing of the workforce, and the division of Europe were bigger changes than the tightening of regulations in America. I would not have thought that before I read Tasty's analysis.

In the end, I think it comes down TDigle and Tastycles. I am voting for Tasty based on two things. The relationship between Churchill and Hitler led to many nations shaking free of hegemonic powers and allowing the people to forge their own way rather than submit to a colonial superpower. That relationship has led to more trade, more conflict, and more concerns about the future than that of FDR and Hirohito. FDR opened up Japan, but Churchill and Hitler opened up most of Europe, the west, and Asia proper.

Secondly, Churchill changed the way war is fought. There is so much emphasis on public opinion, and keeping the public informed, and flaunting victory to maintain morale, and that can be traced to Churchill's use of the news and Hitler's control of the airwaves. If not for these two, one would assume that war would not be as transparent and fought on TV, which brings more information to light and allows the public to act as a check on how a government uses the lives of the young.

 

[gd]

I'm not going to right a post as long as FTS's, considering I don't have as much knowledge/opinion on the topic. However, I was able to determine a winner from this. While it was close, Tasty had me agreeing with most of his opinions by the end of it, as he slightly edges out tdigle.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

What a great job guys.

I want to make a few points before I give my decision.

First of all, I agree with TDigle that war in the Pacific was inevitable with or without Hitler. The motivations for the Japnese battle went far beyond the Tripartite act, and had to do with 19th century whale hunting and a bad trade deal. But, that wasn't really the point of the debate. I think that Tasty's point of interdependence in the relationships fails there.

I think Tasty does make an interesting point that the Churchill/Hitler pair is what caused the sun to set on England. The British empire was still going strong, but, after that war, colonialism faded, and the British faded, giving rise to the Americans. At this point, the existence of Israel, and America, the world's most powerful nation, endorsing Israel and providing it with military support is what makes American such a big target. Secondly, the idea that war being conducted through the media has helped Bush and bin Laden stay in the public consciousness, the same way Churchill and Hitler did.

I like IC's stance that his pair have changed everything that has been established from World War II. I wish he would have hammered this home more, but I do concede that our lives changed after 9/11, and that almost everything that happens is a result of Bush/bin Laden. That being said, how necessary is Bush in this equation. Churchill and Hitler's rivalry intensified World War II. FDR had to embargo Japan over Japan's actions against Americans. Would any other President have handled bin Laden differently? The planning for the attacks started during Clinton's term. bin Laden had alreadt tried to attack the World Trade Center. None of this was said, specifically, so it doesn't matter, but I would have liked to have seen it said. In the end, I think that basis for all social programs, the changing of the workforce, and the division of Europe were bigger changes than the tightening of regulations in America. I would not have thought that before I read Tasty's analysis.

In the end, I think it comes down TDigle and Tastycles. I am voting for Tasty based on two things. The relationship between Churchill and Hitler led to many nations shaking free of hegemonic powers and allowing the people to forge their own way rather than submit to a colonial superpower. That relationship has led to more trade, more conflict, and more concerns about the future than that of FDR and Hirohito. FDR opened up Japan, but Churchill and Hitler opened up most of Europe, the west, and Asia proper.

Secondly, Churchill changed the way war is fought. There is so much emphasis on public opinion, and keeping the public informed, and flaunting victory to maintain morale, and that can be traced to Churchill's use of the news and Hitler's control of the airwaves. If not for these two, one would assume that war would not be as transparent and fought on TV, which brings more information to light and allows the public to act as a check on how a government uses the lives of the young.

It's good to know that you have a firm grasp of history, but I still don't get why you went with Tastycles. I understand clearly why you believe Churchill and Hitler affected history more than FDR and Hirohito, but these were not points that I came across in the debate.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I went with Tasty for two reasons. One, it is undeniable that our current conflicts are a result of the end of the British empire. More nations equals more conflict. He did note that the end of colonialism was in fact a major change in the world. Secondly, the end of colonialism led to the establishment of Israel, which he also noted. Remember, the topic is the biggest effects on the world. Everything that is happening in the world right now has to do with the establishment of Israel.

That is why I went with him. If we were doing points he would have gotten 50, you would have gotten 49.

I went with him for those two reasons.

Also, his argument that the nukes were meant for Germany was helpful. It made the most major aspect of the FDR/Hirohito argument (even though it wasn't FDR that dropped that bomb) seem like less of a winning proposition.

I think you did a tremendous job. Let me tell you that I was going to judge Sunday, but I took a couple of extra days.