Talk:Military history of the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reasons for USA's prolonged neutrality in WW2?

The silence, both in this article and the article on WW2, about US neutrality between September 1939 and December 1941 is positively deafening. The articles record the bare facts, and do not attempt to conceal the fact that both Japan and Germany initiated hostilities against the USA rather than vice versa. But there is no mention of why the USA should have chosen to sit out this glorious struggle for the survival of freedom, democracy, etc. etc., until it was forced to defend itself. Is this topic dealt with elsewhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.208.100.157 (talk • contribs), 10:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) .

Please don't infer that the omission of something means anything significant. You've brought up a good point, and because the interwar period section was thin to begin with, I added some lines from relevant nearby articles to indicate this important era. As for answering your "why?" question, I'm not sure there's a simple answer. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ask again. When did WWII become "this glorious struggle for the survival of freedom, democracy, etc. etc.?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.192.35 (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The reasons for US neutrality in WWII (and WWI) were political and not really relevant to the US military itself.

Idiologically, the US was oppossed to being involved in military conflicts which served to protect the interests of European powers. The political settlements post world war one did not inspire the USA to become more involved in international politics. President Wilson after decisively bringing America into the war, had the oppertunity to make his mark as a great international statesman at the peace conferences. The Republican party in opposition prefered to undermine an opposition politician rather than present a unified front. America declined to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which without American influence was drafted by Britain and France in their favour. largely ignoring Wilson's "Fourteen points" for peace. Adopting an "I told you so" attitude, isolationists in the US campaigned against the involvement of the US in the League of Nations. With US support the League waslargely ineffective, Europe's bankrupt nations, couldn't fund any viable opposition to the Japaneze invaision of Manchuria. Hitler's propaganda in demanding ever increasing territory could have been written for an American Liberal audience. Self determination for all nations was the cornerstone of Wilson's post WWI utopia. That's all Hilter was asking for. One country for all Germans. Even the part of Poland he invaided had been Germany in 1914. By 1941 the US military was coming to terms with the enevitabilty of War with Japan in 1942. Pearl Harbour wasn't the big suprise the public were told it was. Diplomatic relations with Japan had broken down to the point that war was immenant. The biggest obstacle to war was public and political opinion. 86.166.41.182 (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

New article

Not sure why this was removed from the "See also" list. Its obviously involving a historical military subject and has been expanding since yesterday with several new references.

• Mainland invasion of the United States

Seems pretty straightforward to be put back in. -OberRanks (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The article lead says that it is a concept. The only historic part was that of the War of 1812, which already has a section in this article. The link is unnecessary, and this is why I removed it. The article needs more references, and reads like an essay.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a regular on these types of forums, so whatever the majority wants is fine. It can be linked in plenty of other places, and the article is just in its infancy now, since I haven't begun to add the Cold War stuff yet (which is pretty scary when you actually read how the USSR wanted to attack the US). Tks! -OberRanks (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman Telegram

Why is there no mention of the Zimmerman telegram in the WWI section? The article seems to indicate that sub-warfare pulled the U.S. in, but that was just one factor. The unrestricted sub-warfare did turn public opinion against Germany, but the Zimmerman Telegram is ultimately what prompted the U.S. entry into the war. I can understand leaving out other causes (economic investment in the Allies, desire to spread democracy, etc.) for simplicity sake as those are described in those war's respective articles, but surely the direct event leading to a declaration of war should be mentioned. Emperor001 (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military history of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910042906/http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025024629/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=191 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=191
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620055606/http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/win97/parrin.html to http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/win97/parrin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda

This article reads like a propaganda piece. It needs a total overhaul for encyclopedic neutrality's sake.-Splinemath (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2