Do you think World War will occur if Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor

[Endry Lim]

There are rumors saying that if the Americans didn't involve, world war will be just a European and Asian war. If the Japanese didn't attack pearl harbor, the Americans will not be involve in the war at all. What's your say on this?

[Endry Lim]

No one has anything to say one this?

[arjentm]

I think it would have occurred either way. People themselves never want wars... It's always the people that govern and set the policy's, that bump shoulders with the people who profit from such a thing.

 

So in my opinion, if that wouldn't have spurred them into war, something else would have. :\

[myth2009]

I agree very much with what Arjen said.

 

On top of what Arjen said about "if that wouldn't have spurred them into war, something else would have." I think that even top ranked authorities and country leaders have hit a limit on critical thinking during wartimes which prevents them from really doing what is good for PEOPLE... most people haven't wanted "expansion" and "control" of geographical regions - leaders, kings, presidents, etc., are the ones who decide that certain land masses are supposed to become "property" of particular nations, etc.

[Infinaety]

It really depends on what you define a "World War" as. There have actually been more than two world wars in history because of how such conflicts as the Seven Years' War between England and France involved their colonies, including those in North America. The conflict that would have evolved without U. S. involvement after what we call World War I would have still included Eurasia, Africa, Australia, North America, and South America, all of the habitable continents. It would still have been a "World War".

 

I mean, given the situation that you've set out, you're talking about if World War II would have occurred after World War I. In that scenario, Hitler's Germany most likely would have continued his expansionist ambitions across Europe, Japan would have wished to become a major power in the Pacific, and Italy would have wanted to develop more African colonies. This would have run counter to interests in the U. S. as business would've sought resources from such places, and there would've been something of a push for war. Other factors would have contributed as well. Thus, I'd say that it was inevitable.

[rrchon]

The OP is referring to WWII (since it alludes to Japan)

 

WWII was already a World War, even before t he US officially joined in formal declaration of hostilities against Japan, Germany and Italy. WWII had open conflict theaters in Africa, Australia, Asia (China, Manchuria, Parts of Siberia as well as India) and there was conflict zones within the zones of influence of certain powers in South America as well. The presence of the US is not what makes a war a world war, it is the scope of the war itself which encompasses multiple continents.

 

The United States entry and the subsequent use of its intact infrastructure and production capability to win the war for itself and its allies ended WWII but it was already a WWII before the US got in.

[Brother Hassan]

America would have joined anyways ...

They were financially helping the british

[elmyra]

It really depends on what you define a "World War" as. There have actually been more than two world wars in history because of how such conflicts as the Seven Years' War between England and France involved their colonies, including those in North America. The conflict that would have evolved without U. S. involvement after what we call World War I would have still included Eurasia, Africa, Australia, North America, and South America, all of the habitable continents. It would still have been a "World War".

 

I mean, given the situation that you've set out, you're talking about if World War II would have occurred after World War I. In that scenario, Hitler's Germany most likely would have continued his expansionist ambitions across Europe, Japan would have wished to become a major power in the Pacific, and Italy would have wanted to develop more African colonies. This would have run counter to interests in the U. S. as business would've sought resources from such places, and there would've been something of a push for war. Other factors would have contributed as well. Thus, I'd say that it was inevitable.

I agree that it was still a World War, whether or not the US was involved. But I think the topic starter is talking about whether or not the US would have entered the War if Pearl Harbor hadn't been attacked. That's actually a good question, because Churchill had been asking Roosevelt to help Britain before the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred, but Roosevelt was very reluctant to get involved. I'm no expert on the subject, but IIRC, Roosevelt had been pledging to stay out of the War since the general public opinion was that we should stay out of it. That opinion changed after the attack on Pearl Harbor.