Yeah, pretty much any positive time in the US, we gotta remember that Black folks were excluded from the positive aspects of those times. Intentionally.
Ok… Before that slavery and after that hyper imperialism. This is why I said for the most part. Plus ww2 had a lot of firsts for racial and gender equality.
Nah. Lend lease was in full swing, and they were sanctioning the imperial Japanese. Hindsight is 20/20, there was a glimmer of hope at the time that the problem could be resolved with political pressure. Putting boots on the ground without trying anything else first is Bush doctrine level bullshit.
At that point in history Canada would have followed the British crown wherever it went. If Britain had sided with Hitler Canada would have been an axis power.
No. The 1931 Statute of Westminster gave us full control over our foreign policy. The phrase “When Britain is at war, Canada is at war” was about the first world war, not the second.
They were not legally required to follow Britain, but they absolutely followed Britain anyway. If Britain has sat out the war, Canada would have sat out the war. If Britain had joined the axis, Canada would have joined the axis.
Both King and Opposition Leader Robert James Manion stated their opposition to conscripting troops for overseas service in March 1939. Nonetheless, King had not changed his view of 1923 that Canada would participate in a war by the Empire whether or not the United States did.
It had been clear that Canada would elect to participate in the war before the invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939. Four days after the United Kingdom had declared war on 3 September 1939, Parliament was called in special session and both King and Manion stated their support for Canada following Britain, but did not declare war immediately, partly to show that Canada was joining out of her own initiative and was not obligated to go to war.
Lend lease was in full swing, and they were sanctioning the imperial Japanese.
Not really… Sanctions against Japan and Lend and lease were approved the same year we entered the war.
there was a glimmer of hope at the time that the problem could be resolved with political pressure.
I mean, that’s what both the Japanese and the Nazi were hoping for. That the rest of the world would settle for peace and allow them to keep their spoils.
Putting boots on the ground without trying anything else first is Bush doctrine level bullshit.
And when has appeasing fascist with political discourse ever worked? There’s a difference between standing up to literal fascist invading allies, and Bush’s “war on terror”, trying to conflate the two is pathetic.
I mean, that’s what both the Japanese and the Nazi were hoping for. That the rest of the world would settle for peace and allow them to keep their spoils.
Oh, ok. That must be why the Japanese attacked the US, right? Because they were hoping for peace.
There’s a difference between standing up to literal fascist invading allies, and Bush’s “war on terror”,
Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?
trying to conflate the two is pathetic.
Fuck you
when has appeasing fascist with political discourse ever worked?
Oh, ok. That must be why the Japanese attacked the US, right? Because they were hoping for peace.
Literally yes. The Japanese were trying to wipe the entire Pacific fleet out with one punch, making it too costly for the Americans to enter the war. They were hoping that America would cut their losses and settle for a negotiated peace that allowed the Japanese to keep their Pacific holdings.
Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?
Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?
The devil is in the details… Fascism may have some overlaps with the Baathis party, mostly with their authoritarianism. But it’s pretty distinct from it considering Baathism revolves around pan Arabic unity and socialism.
You sound like a republican, circa 2003
Lol, and you sound like Neville Chamberlain circa 1930’s.
The Japanese were trying to wipe the entire Pacific fleet out with one punch, making it too costly for the Americans to enter the war.
…so they could capture the Philippines unimpeded. That is not “hoping for peace”. That is hoping for an easier war.
Fascism may have some overlaps with the Baathis party
You could say that. It would be more accurate to say the venn diagram of the overlap is a circle. It’s weird that you oppose fighting one and not the other. What is the difference you’re concerned with? Do you just not like the word “fascism”, and are ok with governments that are fascist in all but name?
But it’s pretty distinct from it considering Baathism revolves around pan Arabic unity
More like pan Sunni supremacy. Are you forgetting he gassed an entire region trying to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country? Fascist ideologies all revolve around pan (insert race/nationality here) unity. So, again, what’s the difference?
and socialism
Hussein was about as socialist as the National Socialists I guess.
and you sound like Neville Chamberlain circa 1930’s.
Chamberlain gave the UK time to arm so they didn’t get blitzkrieged into extinction.
…so they could capture the Philippines unimpeded. That is not “hoping for peace”. That is hoping for an easier war.
Lol, they invaded the Philippines the same day they bombed pearl harbor… Like I said, they wanted to take the US out in one fatal blow and make it to where the US didn’t have the ability or the motivation for a pacific campaign.
This isn’t even up for debate, it’s well documented history.
"Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto recognized Japan’s industrial inferiority to the U.S. and knew that a prolonged conflict would lead to defeat. The surprise attack was intended to deliver such a heavy blow that the U.S. would sue for peace, avoiding a war they couldn’t win. "
You could say that. It would be more accurate to say the venn diagram of the overlap is a circle. It’s weird that you oppose fighting one and not the other. What is the difference you’re concerned with? Do you just not like the word “fascism”, and are ok with governments that are fascist in all but name?
Idk…maybe it’s the fact that the modern political history of the Middle East and 1930s Europe are different? Maybe it’s that I disagree with how the second gulf war was conducted and justified. Maybe our history of supporting and arming both Iraq and Iran may add some nuance to the scenarios?
Do you just not like the word “fascism”, and are ok with governments that are fascist in all but name?
Fascism does not just mean authoritarianism.
More like pan Sunni supremacy. Are you forgetting he gassed an entire region trying to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country?
The majority of Iraq is Shia… He is Sunni and elevated the Sunni minority, however his attacks against Kurds were because Kurds, like Persians are not Arabic. Again, the history of the middle East is complicated and conflict can be raised from anything from tribalism, nationalism, ethnic conflict, economics, or secretarial violence.
Hussein was about as socialist as the National Socialists I guess.
It’s like you are allergic to nuance…
The Nazi party was not socialist, the only reason it has socialism in the name is because socialism was so popular in Germany in the 20s and 30s that you couldn’t get on the ballot without giving it the nod. The Nazi government only nationalized resources and existing businesses so they could then privatize it to someone with in the party as a favour.
The baathis party had a state planned economy. According to Phebe Marr, Saddam “provided widespread health, education, and social benefits that went well beyond those of any previous regime”.[4] Saddam implemented land reform, made hospitals and education free, doubled the number of students in schools and developed infrastructure such as roads, access to electricity and water, in addition to increasing life expectancy and decreasing child mortality.[4]
While he was literally crazy, and an authoritarian, he was still a socialist.
Chamberlain gave the UK time to arm so they didn’t get blitzkrieged into extinction.
Lol, this is the most ahistorical take on Chamberlain ever… It ignores his attitude towards appeasement that he held since the beginning of his tenure.
“Chamberlain sought to conciliate Germany and make the Nazi state a partner in a stable Europe.[85] He believed Germany could be satisfied by the restoration of some of its colonies, and during the Rhineland crisis of March 1936 he had stated that “if we were in sight of an all-round settlement the British government ought to consider the question” of restoration of colonies.[86]”
Also, how exactly would Germany be “blitzkrieg” Britain while invading the rest of Europe?
All of your takes are historically inaccurate and based solely on generalizing to the point of indistinction.
The US only joined the allies because of Japan’s war declaration. They were mostly happy making bank with both sides before that.
The communications systems in german tanks were working with Graham Bell technology. Their electronics were big on american parts too. Part of the oil that fueled the invasion of Poland and France was from the US. A big part of US’ elites were pro-Hitler (for them the guy was a godsend against communism). The safest places to hide during the American bombings in Germany were the IBM factories.
I think there was some consideration towards joining or at least aligning with the central powers during WW1 but there was basically no interest with joining the Axis in WW2.
USA under Franklin Roosevelt was probably the only time the country was firmly at the highest peak of moral ground.
As for the rhetorical questions, you make it sound as though US fascists were in power to effect influence and policy change. They have been loud but never been influential enough. FDR have made sure of that.
And as for the nuclear bombs, what could have been the other option? Potential 500k-1 million American deaths on invading Japan? And let’s not even think about how many more Japanese civilians could have died since they were brainwashed to fight to the death.
We were pretty cool during ww2 for the most part.
We dropped not just one but two of the most horrific weapon ever developed on a civilian population.
Most horrific weapons dropped on a civilian population so far.
Although given the state of Palestine, I can’t say dropping lots of small bombs is any better.
Well that is what was already happening to japan and particularly tokyo, less people died from the nukes than died from the napalm bombing of tokyo.
Well it’s not like you can use drop “the bomb that was meant to be invented 700 years later” to a military base or two to scare your enemies.
My brother in christ, the military was segregated during world war 2.
Yeah, pretty much any positive time in the US, we gotta remember that Black folks were excluded from the positive aspects of those times. Intentionally.
Ok… Before that slavery and after that hyper imperialism. This is why I said for the most part. Plus ww2 had a lot of firsts for racial and gender equality.
Monroe doctrine? War against Spain?
The hyper imperialism kinda kicked off before ww2, it was kinda the reason we got involved in the first place.
(was just teasing, I still think it’s good the US participated on the right side at least, because that wasn’t always going to go that way).
deleted by creator
Ah yes, that time we put asians in concentration camps. Pretty cool. /s
And the guy who signed the order is a hero to liberals to this day
And Reagan, let’s remember that.
That’s a big nahhhh from me, chief. Japanese-Americans might have some words for you.
Again before that, slavery, after that Imperialism and now new concentration camps and exile.
Except for the two and half years they just sat on the sidelines.
Nah. Lend lease was in full swing, and they were sanctioning the imperial Japanese. Hindsight is 20/20, there was a glimmer of hope at the time that the problem could be resolved with political pressure. Putting boots on the ground without trying anything else first is Bush doctrine level bullshit.
Canada seemed to have it figured out.
At that point in history Canada would have followed the British crown wherever it went. If Britain had sided with Hitler Canada would have been an axis power.
No. The 1931 Statute of Westminster gave us full control over our foreign policy. The phrase “When Britain is at war, Canada is at war” was about the first world war, not the second.
They were not legally required to follow Britain, but they absolutely followed Britain anyway. If Britain has sat out the war, Canada would have sat out the war. If Britain had joined the axis, Canada would have joined the axis.
Not really… Sanctions against Japan and Lend and lease were approved the same year we entered the war.
I mean, that’s what both the Japanese and the Nazi were hoping for. That the rest of the world would settle for peace and allow them to keep their spoils.
And when has appeasing fascist with political discourse ever worked? There’s a difference between standing up to literal fascist invading allies, and Bush’s “war on terror”, trying to conflate the two is pathetic.
Oh, ok. That must be why the Japanese attacked the US, right? Because they were hoping for peace.
Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?
Fuck you
You sound like a republican, circa 2003
Literally yes. The Japanese were trying to wipe the entire Pacific fleet out with one punch, making it too costly for the Americans to enter the war. They were hoping that America would cut their losses and settle for a negotiated peace that allowed the Japanese to keep their Pacific holdings.
The devil is in the details… Fascism may have some overlaps with the Baathis party, mostly with their authoritarianism. But it’s pretty distinct from it considering Baathism revolves around pan Arabic unity and socialism.
Lol, and you sound like Neville Chamberlain circa 1930’s.
…so they could capture the Philippines unimpeded. That is not “hoping for peace”. That is hoping for an easier war.
You could say that. It would be more accurate to say the venn diagram of the overlap is a circle. It’s weird that you oppose fighting one and not the other. What is the difference you’re concerned with? Do you just not like the word “fascism”, and are ok with governments that are fascist in all but name?
More like pan Sunni supremacy. Are you forgetting he gassed an entire region trying to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country? Fascist ideologies all revolve around pan (insert race/nationality here) unity. So, again, what’s the difference?
Hussein was about as socialist as the National Socialists I guess.
Chamberlain gave the UK time to arm so they didn’t get blitzkrieged into extinction.
Lol, they invaded the Philippines the same day they bombed pearl harbor… Like I said, they wanted to take the US out in one fatal blow and make it to where the US didn’t have the ability or the motivation for a pacific campaign.
This isn’t even up for debate, it’s well documented history. "Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto recognized Japan’s industrial inferiority to the U.S. and knew that a prolonged conflict would lead to defeat. The surprise attack was intended to deliver such a heavy blow that the U.S. would sue for peace, avoiding a war they couldn’t win. "
Idk…maybe it’s the fact that the modern political history of the Middle East and 1930s Europe are different? Maybe it’s that I disagree with how the second gulf war was conducted and justified. Maybe our history of supporting and arming both Iraq and Iran may add some nuance to the scenarios?
Fascism does not just mean authoritarianism.
The majority of Iraq is Shia… He is Sunni and elevated the Sunni minority, however his attacks against Kurds were because Kurds, like Persians are not Arabic. Again, the history of the middle East is complicated and conflict can be raised from anything from tribalism, nationalism, ethnic conflict, economics, or secretarial violence.
It’s like you are allergic to nuance…
The Nazi party was not socialist, the only reason it has socialism in the name is because socialism was so popular in Germany in the 20s and 30s that you couldn’t get on the ballot without giving it the nod. The Nazi government only nationalized resources and existing businesses so they could then privatize it to someone with in the party as a favour.
The baathis party had a state planned economy. According to Phebe Marr, Saddam “provided widespread health, education, and social benefits that went well beyond those of any previous regime”.[4] Saddam implemented land reform, made hospitals and education free, doubled the number of students in schools and developed infrastructure such as roads, access to electricity and water, in addition to increasing life expectancy and decreasing child mortality.[4]
While he was literally crazy, and an authoritarian, he was still a socialist.
Lol, this is the most ahistorical take on Chamberlain ever… It ignores his attitude towards appeasement that he held since the beginning of his tenure. “Chamberlain sought to conciliate Germany and make the Nazi state a partner in a stable Europe.[85] He believed Germany could be satisfied by the restoration of some of its colonies, and during the Rhineland crisis of March 1936 he had stated that “if we were in sight of an all-round settlement the British government ought to consider the question” of restoration of colonies.[86]”
Also, how exactly would Germany be “blitzkrieg” Britain while invading the rest of Europe?
All of your takes are historically inaccurate and based solely on generalizing to the point of indistinction.
Didn’t the US consider joining the axis but only joined the allies because they stood to make bank helping rebuild Europe?
And wasn’t the only Nazi rally outside of Germany held in the US, in Madison Square Garden?
And didn’t the US turn two cities in Japan into glass and ash?
They turned way more cities than that into ash.
I don’t believe we legitimately considered joining the axis, as a nation.
We did however have awful “leaders” with fascist ideologies … and they never went away.
The US only joined the allies because of Japan’s war declaration. They were mostly happy making bank with both sides before that.
The communications systems in german tanks were working with Graham Bell technology. Their electronics were big on american parts too. Part of the oil that fueled the invasion of Poland and France was from the US. A big part of US’ elites were pro-Hitler (for them the guy was a godsend against communism). The safest places to hide during the American bombings in Germany were the IBM factories.
I think there was some consideration towards joining or at least aligning with the central powers during WW1 but there was basically no interest with joining the Axis in WW2.
USA under Franklin Roosevelt was probably the only time the country was firmly at the highest peak of moral ground.
As for the rhetorical questions, you make it sound as though US fascists were in power to effect influence and policy change. They have been loud but never been influential enough. FDR have made sure of that.
And as for the nuclear bombs, what could have been the other option? Potential 500k-1 million American deaths on invading Japan? And let’s not even think about how many more Japanese civilians could have died since they were brainwashed to fight to the death.
Hey, let’s play a game. Any time someone says something good, you guys shit all over it.
Wait, did you all start without me?
Before or after you refused boatloads of genocide escapees and watched the rest of the world burn for a couple years?