It pissed me off to no end when that was used during the protests last year. Boomer black leaders and organizers were constantly whining about "white leftists" hijacking the movement and making it anticapitalist.
Hell the communism predated the fall of Imperial Japan. Volunteer Korean communists served with Chinese volunteers in the 88th Independent Rifle Brigade during the final battle for Manchuria. Kim Il-Sung served in the brigade himself. Anti-Japanese militants had retreated to the USSR early on as well. The US treated liberated Korea as a hostile power needing to be occupied, whereas they treated Japan more as a nation building project like a harmed ally.
I don't buy that personally. Mostly cause FDR was trying to get involved. In fact that USN kinda harmed the neutrality and had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbor, could have regardless caused other neutral powers to side more with the Axis due to the us not respecting international law in term of neutral powers. US ships engaged at least 1 U-Boat during the Niblack incident
The US risked sending other neutrals into the arms of or preferring the Axis with these actions, as well as giving ammo to the isolationists domestically. However it was sorta inevitable that a fight would occur. Japanese interests required the US territory in the Pacific. Germany invading the UK also would have been probably to far for the US general public. I think we overstate the opinions of the government and the industrialists when it comes to general American sentiment, especially once 1940-41 rolls around.
But yes WW2 starts in Europe at LEAST with the annexing of Czechoslovakia, and broadly with Ethiopia in terms of that part of the hemisphere, and really with Manchuria in 1931. Hell despite not fighting Japan again till the invasion of Manchuria at the end of the war, the Soviets and Mongolia had fought them brilliantly in the battle of Khalkin Gol in 1939.
then it'd hardly be WW2. the inter-imperial conflict aspect of WW2 was an intractable issue: no matter the affinity the western bourgeois had for the fascists, the fascists wanted a slice of their pie & the Wallies could never allow that.
Yeah Churchill's sentiments about Germany highlight the sheer hatred the British had for the idea that the Germanic peoples could be masters of their own destiny. There was an intractable conflict there, it just was not over fascism. The British and French still wanted to fight against their actual fear, not fascism but the same thing they feared in WW1 despite the content of Germany being utterly changed
The self-conscious and embarrassed Germany that wanted "our place in the sun" was what the west hated, not the fact that they are fascists, but none the less it was an opposition
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
"Outside agitators."
It pissed me off to no end when that was used during the protests last year. Boomer black leaders and organizers were constantly whining about "white leftists" hijacking the movement and making it anticapitalist.
deleted by creator
Hell the communism predated the fall of Imperial Japan. Volunteer Korean communists served with Chinese volunteers in the 88th Independent Rifle Brigade during the final battle for Manchuria. Kim Il-Sung served in the brigade himself. Anti-Japanese militants had retreated to the USSR early on as well. The US treated liberated Korea as a hostile power needing to be occupied, whereas they treated Japan more as a nation building project like a harmed ally.
deleted by creator
I don't buy that personally. Mostly cause FDR was trying to get involved. In fact that USN kinda harmed the neutrality and had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbor, could have regardless caused other neutral powers to side more with the Axis due to the us not respecting international law in term of neutral powers. US ships engaged at least 1 U-Boat during the Niblack incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_engagement_of_neutral_United_States_in_World_War_II_before_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
The US risked sending other neutrals into the arms of or preferring the Axis with these actions, as well as giving ammo to the isolationists domestically. However it was sorta inevitable that a fight would occur. Japanese interests required the US territory in the Pacific. Germany invading the UK also would have been probably to far for the US general public. I think we overstate the opinions of the government and the industrialists when it comes to general American sentiment, especially once 1940-41 rolls around.
But yes WW2 starts in Europe at LEAST with the annexing of Czechoslovakia, and broadly with Ethiopia in terms of that part of the hemisphere, and really with Manchuria in 1931. Hell despite not fighting Japan again till the invasion of Manchuria at the end of the war, the Soviets and Mongolia had fought them brilliantly in the battle of Khalkin Gol in 1939.
deleted by creator
aw thank you
then it'd hardly be WW2. the inter-imperial conflict aspect of WW2 was an intractable issue: no matter the affinity the western bourgeois had for the fascists, the fascists wanted a slice of their pie & the Wallies could never allow that.
Yeah Churchill's sentiments about Germany highlight the sheer hatred the British had for the idea that the Germanic peoples could be masters of their own destiny. There was an intractable conflict there, it just was not over fascism. The British and French still wanted to fight against their actual fear, not fascism but the same thing they feared in WW1 despite the content of Germany being utterly changed
http://www.metropostcard.com/picswar-7b/ww1-b-259-worldorder.jpg.jpg
The self-conscious and embarrassed Germany that wanted "our place in the sun" was what the west hated, not the fact that they are fascists, but none the less it was an opposition