View the H-Diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Diplo home page.
Mark Safranski wrote: "Professor Kaiser is proposing what would seem to me to be an impossibly high burden on statesmen. The United States (or any major power) will inevitably make any war " more destructive " if not longer, by joining battle. The same could easily be said for American participation in WWII." I replied to the first half of this statement previously, but not to the last sentence, which is equally if not more significant to the argument. American participation in the Second World War almost certainly shortened it, not lengthened it, by providing the Allied side with overwhelming force. Without American participation the Japanese would have fought indefinitely in China and the German-Soviet war might have lasted much, much longer. If American participation did not merely shorten the war, it did something even more important--namely, change the outcome from an Axis victory to an allied one. But American participation in the Vietnam war made it much longer and much more costly without changing the outcome, which is why I find it so hard to defend. David Kaiser