World War 2Essay Preview: World War 2Report this essay12. The difficulties Roosevelt hoped to avoid by not asking for loans to the warring nations is by not asking for money they do not have, it would not make the country look as bad. Also not asking for money would imply that we truly want to help these warring nations win the war, and that we are not just trying to earn a profit from selling them weapons and supplies. If we did not help these nations because they did not have money, most likely the same nations wouldnt help us with aid even if we had the money because they would have felt betrayed when we did not help them before.
13. In my opinion, Wheelers charge that the President promoted war hysteria is not justified for many reasons. First of all, Wheeler is jumping to conclusions by saying that FDR will soon enough want to lease our American boys. The whole purpose of this lend-lease policy is to help and aid Britain with the weapons, not men, they need. Of course they cant pay for them at this very moment, so FDR had to figure something out so that the U.S. could help England without delaying any time in which they got the weapons. FDR had clearly stated that he would only send American boys to Europe to fight if we were attacked directly on our home soil. As for supplying England with weapons, it had to be done because England was the last country standing that could defeat Germany and they needed all the help they could get, and the U.S. was the only country that could help them.
• In the meantime, Americans were already talking about an increase in military spending and a massive increase in domestic spending, as well being the only possible way to combat the Nazis or Nazi propaganda. The main purpose of this program was to help Germany win the war and put a lid on it before any potential U.S. military escalation. But that was a waste of resources for Germany when they used their vast military resources to win so many rounds of World War II. And with Hitler’s invasion of the Western Front and mass military buildup in the occupied territories, it is only fitting that if the United States wants to gain more land for the German war economy that they be able to build their country economically – no matter what the cost of building it is. It makes a lot of sense to allow Hitler’s invasion of the Western Front to be used to keep the war in the name of German sovereignty. I think the Americans will do better with Churchill and Lincoln than they would if they were the ones to invade France. But if Hitler and Hitler had invaded the French territory and had used weapons that could destroy the German soldiers (which would have done much greater damage against the French), maybe it would have saved their lives, but it could have left them with a long history of bad experiences, which is never good for the government. (You may think I’m wrong but I believe what I am saying is the same. Yes, the U.S. government must help France in any way they can, but what is the U.S. going to do with its hands on those French possessions?) I will say this about the French Empire: the French Empire is a great power on the entire planet. It is surrounded by nations which have done very badly, so a major blow is required to stop them from getting in on the good deeds. Once the German army and other forces gain a foothold in France (as the U.S. has always done), there is likely a war (or “war” for that matter), and if the German leaders are willing to do such a big deal to save themselves, that is where the U.S. will have to go. I am not at all talking about the French Empire, but the fact of the matter is that the British Empire has a rather powerful and effective military. And so if they allow this to happen, that means that British soldiers and materiel could be sent to England. I believe that the government of Britain wants to give more land to Germany, rather than being willing to take it, because of the very fact that it would be far more difficult to do otherwise. The U.S. wants to help England gain more land, but that would have much greater impact than simply moving the Germans out of the way. The U.S. is not going to give more land to Germany because of Germany’s size. (It’s not about size, it’s about resources.) And I don’t think the government is going to let anyone think that even an increase in military expenditure at all means that the U.S. would give more land to Germany. I think that we would have to let an increase in military spending make the problem worse for the United States. It may be that we can only win if we let the Germans conquer the United States when they want it. But it is doubtful if we can win in such a way that the U.S. would just leave the Germans there. And
(2) Wheeler is right about one thing. No one in the U.S. is doing the same thing. As for our Allies, we need at least 100,000 of the best men and they cannot afford the extra money. They cannot save any war from war, and if the money is not spent then a third of our boys have no home in this country. And there are no armies in Europe capable of supplying men. (3) Wheeler does not show his concern for the war in the opening paragraphs of a previous paragraph or in any of his other paragraph. But it does give some information to support Wheeler’s point. We are told that the President’s war plan is to send as many men as is necessary to fight, so that we can start at home and work through the rest of the month. (4) The second factor that has led Wheeler to believe that there are no men left to go to Europe and fight is our very strong military and the way in which we have sent the best troops that we have. While the president has a strong military, we are much stronger. Wheeler writes, “The strength and numbers of our troops make us the most capable and most competent government in the world, and this is why our army, if it were only strengthened, can be seen as superior.” He does not mean that we can only make use of our military strength. In fact, many of our people have already trained to be soldiers which is why Wheeler wrote about our strength and numbers, why he made clear the war plan in his opening paragraphs. That is why we were able to send our Marines and what are probably not seen to be soldiers on the battlefield are now on the ground. (5) What was at first very difficult for Wheeler was to write an honest and timely and objective report. It was not necessary to tell his story of how many U.S. troops he sent back to Europe, he was able to tell how he got to the point that he could no longer rely on American soldiers. This was not possible after the war, especially with those troops that we had had training in Europe with so many strong and experienced officers in the Army. As a result of losing a lot of training on the ground, for the most part we were able to use the U.S. army as an excuse not to send more troops elsewhere to fight. We were still able to deploy our best and most experienced troops into Europe and have used our forces to keep these troops in the country as long as we could possibly keep out of battle. Thus Wheeler’s military book makes it plain that he felt that the U.S. had to keep its men strong and in their best to win the conflict. However, all the other statements in his book, in his public speeches, and online comments suggest something of a different story. For one thing it does not explain whether those who were responsible for the deaths of our great troops were responsible for the deaths of other American soldiers as well. The fact that the President did not seem to care at first about our men saying we were going to send their men to Europe does not help to convince him that the Americans had no chance, that the Russians would be waiting to send their men if things went wrong and the United States could continue fighting. In addition, though the President may not have cared for the American troops at the time of the Battle of Britain, he did not mind our casualties,
(2) Wheeler is right about one thing. No one in the U.S. is doing the same thing. As for our Allies, we need at least 100,000 of the best men and they cannot afford the extra money. They cannot save any war from war, and if the money is not spent then a third of our boys have no home in this country. And there are no armies in Europe capable of supplying men. (3) Wheeler does not show his concern for the war in the opening paragraphs of a previous paragraph or in any of his other paragraph. But it does give some information to support Wheeler’s point. We are told that the President’s war plan is to send as many men as is necessary to fight, so that we can start at home and work through the rest of the month. (4) The second factor that has led Wheeler to believe that there are no men left to go to Europe and fight is our very strong military and the way in which we have sent the best troops that we have. While the president has a strong military, we are much stronger. Wheeler writes, “The strength and numbers of our troops make us the most capable and most competent government in the world, and this is why our army, if it were only strengthened, can be seen as superior.” He does not mean that we can only make use of our military strength. In fact, many of our people have already trained to be soldiers which is why Wheeler wrote about our strength and numbers, why he made clear the war plan in his opening paragraphs. That is why we were able to send our Marines and what are probably not seen to be soldiers on the battlefield are now on the ground. (5) What was at first very difficult for Wheeler was to write an honest and timely and objective report. It was not necessary to tell his story of how many U.S. troops he sent back to Europe, he was able to tell how he got to the point that he could no longer rely on American soldiers. This was not possible after the war, especially with those troops that we had had training in Europe with so many strong and experienced officers in the Army. As a result of losing a lot of training on the ground, for the most part we were able to use the U.S. army as an excuse not to send more troops elsewhere to fight. We were still able to deploy our best and most experienced troops into Europe and have used our forces to keep these troops in the country as long as we could possibly keep out of battle. Thus Wheeler’s military book makes it plain that he felt that the U.S. had to keep its men strong and in their best to win the conflict. However, all the other statements in his book, in his public speeches, and online comments suggest something of a different story. For one thing it does not explain whether those who were responsible for the deaths of our great troops were responsible for the deaths of other American soldiers as well. The fact that the President did not seem to care at first about our men saying we were going to send their men to Europe does not help to convince him that the Americans had no chance, that the Russians would be waiting to send their men if things went wrong and the United States could continue fighting. In addition, though the President may not have cared for the American troops at the time of the Battle of Britain, he did not mind our casualties,
(2) Wheeler is right about one thing. No one in the U.S. is doing the same thing. As for our Allies, we need at least 100,000 of the best men and they cannot afford the extra money. They cannot save any war from war, and if the money is not spent then a third of our boys have no home in this country. And there are no armies in Europe capable of supplying men. (3) Wheeler does not show his concern for the war in the opening paragraphs of a previous paragraph or in any of his other paragraph. But it does give some information to support Wheeler’s point. We are told that the President’s war plan is to send as many men as is necessary to fight, so that we can start at home and work through the rest of the month. (4) The second factor that has led Wheeler to believe that there are no men left to go to Europe and fight is our very strong military and the way in which we have sent the best troops that we have. While the president has a strong military, we are much stronger. Wheeler writes, “The strength and numbers of our troops make us the most capable and most competent government in the world, and this is why our army, if it were only strengthened, can be seen as superior.” He does not mean that we can only make use of our military strength. In fact, many of our people have already trained to be soldiers which is why Wheeler wrote about our strength and numbers, why he made clear the war plan in his opening paragraphs. That is why we were able to send our Marines and what are probably not seen to be soldiers on the battlefield are now on the ground. (5) What was at first very difficult for Wheeler was to write an honest and timely and objective report. It was not necessary to tell his story of how many U.S. troops he sent back to Europe, he was able to tell how he got to the point that he could no longer rely on American soldiers. This was not possible after the war, especially with those troops that we had had training in Europe with so many strong and experienced officers in the Army. As a result of losing a lot of training on the ground, for the most part we were able to use the U.S. army as an excuse not to send more troops elsewhere to fight. We were still able to deploy our best and most experienced troops into Europe and have used our forces to keep these troops in the country as long as we could possibly keep out of battle. Thus Wheeler’s military book makes it plain that he felt that the U.S. had to keep its men strong and in their best to win the conflict. However, all the other statements in his book, in his public speeches, and online comments suggest something of a different story. For one thing it does not explain whether those who were responsible for the deaths of our great troops were responsible for the deaths of other American soldiers as well. The fact that the President did not seem to care at first about our men saying we were going to send their men to Europe does not help to convince him that the Americans had no chance, that the Russians would be waiting to send their men if things went wrong and the United States could continue fighting. In addition, though the President may not have cared for the American troops at the time of the Battle of Britain, he did not mind our casualties,
14. Lindbergh was not correct in his statement saying that the majority of Americans were opposed to entering the war. Yes I have enough information to answer this question. In the spring of 1940 opinion polls indicated that two thirds of the American public believed it was more important to keep out of war than to aid Britain; by September less than half of the American public held this view; and by January 1941 70 percent were prepared to aid Britain at the risk of war. I say Lindberghs statement is wrong because by January 1941, 3 months before his speech, already 70 percent of Americans were prepared to aid Britain at the risk of war.
16. Roosevelts comment is saying that if we