Was WWII the US's fault? No it wasn't. Was it good they joined? Yes, you even agree since you think they joined to late. (And I agree they joined too let too) So that fits the qualifications of the first question.
Hitler was heavily inspired by American treatment of Native Americans and black people. Although not completely, he thought the one drop rule was a little too much.
Yes and eugenics was horrible. But are you saying the entirety of Nazi Germany is the majority the fault of the US? That's even more of a stretch than just following orders.
Edit: solely to majority to better reflect the question
I assumed the question meant majority fault, since that's what I mean when I say something is someone's fault. Sorry for the sloppy wording. Majority share of fault.
We’re claiming the US was indirectly responsible for it, and directly refused to enter until it was clear the Soviets were winning to prevent a communist Europe.
Love that you completely ignored the part where the US involvement led to them brutalizing and murdering countless completely innocent civilians. That part is pretty inconvenient to your argument that they were somehow the good guys here so yeah it is a pretty safe bet to ignore it. I'd love to hear you defend it though I'm sure you'll do Uncle Sam proud
But it's irrelevant to the question. The question was whether it was good the US joined WWII. Even accounting for the atrocities, I don't know anyone who would say the US shouldn't have joined the war.
No the question was is there a time when the US was objectively good. You used WW2 as an example. And then ignored all the completely heinous shit the US did during WW2.
SIR, MY PUBLIC EDUCATION HISTORY CLASS SAID WE WERE HEROES AFTER FORCING ME TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIEGANCE EVERY MORNING, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION DROPPING NUKES ON CIVILIANS, PARTICULARLY THE SECOND ONE WHERE JAPAN'S SURRENDER ALREADY WENT FROM INEVIETABLE TO UNDENIABLE AFTER THE FIRST. I AM A HERO BY VIRTUE OF BEING BORN IN AMERICA. A "FEW" HORRIFIC, CIVILIAN MASS MURDERS IS MY DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVELY GOOD.
They weren't objectively good though, as has been explained to you. "Even accounting the atrocities" is the thing that makes them not objectively good.
Learn what words mean please
No, he asked if they were objectively good in that war, which they weren't even fucking close. At best they were a grey-moralist lesser of two evil, but the fact you conflate that with "good" is exactly why you'll never comprehend any situation with any nuance. In your mind it's always "WW2 USA GOOD GUYS SAVED WORLD" like some lead-poisoned brain damaged boomer desperately trying to live voraciously through low-rent nationalist propaganda. I'd say, yes, America was the lesser of two evils compared to Nazi Germany and Japan, and the fact that's the closest you can get to "good" and the political parties you need to compare yourself to, to look better in comparison to someone, proves Infamousblt's point.
The closest to "objectively good" America's actions has been in a situation is "well, it's not as bad as letting Nazi Germany take over all of Europe" and that's not good, that's horror.
The closest to "objectively good" America's actions has been in a situation is "well, it's not as bad as letting Nazi Germany take over all of Europe" and that's not good, that's horror.
That's just the largest example that comes to mind.
I thought the question was 'has the US done any good actions,' which would qualify WWII. If instead the question was asking 'has the US done any actions that are entirely and completely perfect' I would say no nation has.
Capitalists and communists in many countries helped cause their rise to power.
You're just saying that because "both sides" feels true to you. It's not, though. Communists in Germany were the bitterest opponents of the Nazis, before the latter even had a strong party formation. And as the first line of the poem goes, Communists were the first ones "they" came for (although this is usually omitted in liberal retellings".
If you've ever heard of Antonio Gramsci you know that imprisoning or killing communists was the first order of business under Mussolini.
You can name any country that went fascist, and we can point out where the capitalists were easing it along and the communists were fighting it tooth and nail.
Probably the Italians and Germans were a bit involved too, obviously ww2 is not entirely the fault of America but they were some giant fucking dominoes that fell.
The US wasn’t even in on the treaty of Versailles if that’s what you’re talking about.
The US however was very stringent in demanding repayment for all weapons it provided to UK and France, with interest, which necessitated those countries being harsh with Germany over war reparations in turn. German war reparations essentially all flowed to America, to say they weren’t in on the treaty is true but it’s sleight of hand ignoring the role US played in dictating the economic direction of Europe through its role as creditor.
Then, you had US industrialists funding and working with the Nazis as they rose to power.
The US however was very stringent in demanding repayment for all weapons it provided to UK and France, with interest, which necessitated those countries being harsh with Germany over war reparations in turn. German war reparations essentially all flowed to America
This is an absurd take, regardless of its veracity (do you have a source?).
The budgets of the French and British governments are not the responsibility of the US, and there is no reasonable argument that would have justified forgiving those loans. The UK and France were harsh with Germany because they hated and feared Germany and wanted revenge after World War 1.
I have absolutely no doubt that you would be even more outraged if the US had indeed forgiven its wartime loans to Britain and France after WW1. I'm not sure what your angle would be, but it would probably be more persuasive than your current argument 😉
The book Super Imperialism by Michael Hudson gets into this in depth with all the receipts. It was common practice in Europe that debts incurred by wartime allies were forgiven, so it was actually breaking with all precedent that the US demanded full repayment with interest from their allies, and the circular flow of payments from US banks to postwar Germany, to the European allies and back to the US is clearly documented and laid out by Hudson in his book. This is an arrangement that was intentional and beneficial to the United States at the expense of Europe, until it came crashing down when the financial bubble it created popped and the Great Depression resulted.
How can a take be “absurd regardless of its veracity”. Literally stating the truth is “absurd” if it reflects poorly on the United States? Do you find yourself overwhelmed living in such an absurd world (this one, where the United States is objectively a bad actor)?
The reason I say it's absurd regardless of veracity is because it was not a valid geopolitical option. The US was still pursuing an isolationist foreign policy in the eyes of the public, it would have been political suicide to forgive those loans. The fact that we got involved at all was already shocking to Americans, if we then waived repayment it would have been a national outrage.
Also, I that I highly doubt that the US decision to demand repayment of the loans is notably outside of the bounds of normal international conduct. I haven't read that book so I can't say for sure, but I have a hunch that you're making a false equivalency somewhere.
debts incurred by wartime allies were forgiven
Perhaps this is the reason, because the US was less of a wartime ally and more of a savior. The US was under absolutely no military threat, and thus viewing the loans as part of some kind of collective wartime struggle is quite the stretch.
The U.S wasn’t really implementing an isolationist policy, and never has since its inception. (Certainly not prior to WW1 when they had just finished going to war with Spain to take over its colonies, nor during nor after WW1 when they sent troops to a different Latin American country every single year to impose their will). It was just brutal realpolitik.
“Isolationism” vs free trade and free markets, the US government and ruling class just does whatever benefits itself the most. Hence, other countries need to open up their markets to US exports post WW1 but the U.S. will simultaneously levy protectionist tariffs so that European goods can’t be competitive in the US market. Germany had no recourse but to borrow more money from US banks to pay their reparations, so that UK can turn around and give that money back to the US government. The only other way for these governments to meet their payments to the US was to impose austerity and wring the money out of their own domestic population (which they also did, also a contributing factor to the turmoil which eventually led to another world war).
I don’t buy this “aw shucks we would love to forgive the debt or interest but we just can’t sell that to our domestic masses who care a lot about fiscal policy”. They did it because it directly benefited them (the ruling class and their state). They made massive profits off of the entire arrangement. Nothing mysterious about their motivations there. A better topic of discussion is would the European powers agreed to pay up, when that actually went against their own interests (look where it got them!)
We advocate for the forgiveness of all IMF loans, as they are primarily a way of exacting concessions against governments of underdeveloped countries, privatizing their industry for the profits of multinational companies and cementing theor economies as subordinate.
One example is Haiti, where upon their independence France extorted them for tens of multiples of their GDP, purportedly for the "cost" incurred, and were in debt for 2 centuries.
We aren't too concerned with Britain and France getting repaid on any international debts when they're so far ahead, at other countries' expense, to begin with.
there is no reasonable argument that would have justified forgiving those loans
even mean? How about “these countries were just destroyed by war and can’t reasonably be expected to pay”?
Governments can and do forgive loans when they feel it’s appropriate. The U.S. made a conscious decision to wield its creditor status without mercy to further crush Europe and solidify its own position as top global power.
The budgets of the French and British governments are not the responsibility of the US
Yeah which is why they should have told US to stuff it with its ridiculous demands for payment lol
Was the US being in ww2 good? Probably not. Not just becoming a rogue nation and using WMDs on civilians but the money we stole from Europe went on to pay for us doing several genocides. So on balance it isn't great
Was WWII the US's fault? No it wasn't. Was it good they joined? Yes, you even agree since you think they joined to late. (And I agree they joined too let too) So that fits the qualifications of the first question.
Hitler was heavily inspired by American treatment of Native Americans and black people. Although not completely, he thought the one drop rule was a little too much.
Yes and eugenics was horrible. But are you saying the entirety of Nazi Germany is the majority the fault of the US? That's even more of a stretch than just following orders.
Edit: solely to majority to better reflect the question
deleted by creator
I assumed the question meant majority fault, since that's what I mean when I say something is someone's fault. Sorry for the sloppy wording. Majority share of fault.
WTF does “majority share of fault” mean?
We’re claiming the US was indirectly responsible for it, and directly refused to enter until it was clear the Soviets were winning to prevent a communist Europe.
This man literally has the entirety of hexbear up in arms trying to deal with the sheer intensity of his ignorance
Majority of fault is pretty hard to measure for this kind of thing but they were a significant inspiration for the Nazis which is enough fault for me
The apartide state of Jim Crow America founded on slavery and genocide? Yes, our evils going unpunished proved what could be gotten away with
Love that you completely ignored the part where the US involvement led to them brutalizing and murdering countless completely innocent civilians. That part is pretty inconvenient to your argument that they were somehow the good guys here so yeah it is a pretty safe bet to ignore it. I'd love to hear you defend it though I'm sure you'll do Uncle Sam proud
But it's irrelevant to the question. The question was whether it was good the US joined WWII. Even accounting for the atrocities, I don't know anyone who would say the US shouldn't have joined the war.
No the question was is there a time when the US was objectively good. You used WW2 as an example. And then ignored all the completely heinous shit the US did during WW2.
SIR, MY PUBLIC EDUCATION HISTORY CLASS SAID WE WERE HEROES AFTER FORCING ME TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIEGANCE EVERY MORNING, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION DROPPING NUKES ON CIVILIANS, PARTICULARLY THE SECOND ONE WHERE JAPAN'S SURRENDER ALREADY WENT FROM INEVIETABLE TO UNDENIABLE AFTER THE FIRST. I AM A HERO BY VIRTUE OF BEING BORN IN AMERICA. A "FEW" HORRIFIC, CIVILIAN MASS MURDERS IS MY DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVELY GOOD.
But it can still be objectively good they joined even taking into account the atrocities. It doesn't need to be all good to be good over all.
I disagree. A Soviet victory without US involvement would have been objectively better.
They weren't objectively good though, as has been explained to you. "Even accounting the atrocities" is the thing that makes them not objectively good.
Learn what words mean please
Whether something is good or not is inherently subjective, dingus
No, he asked if they were objectively good in that war, which they weren't even fucking close. At best they were a grey-moralist lesser of two evil, but the fact you conflate that with "good" is exactly why you'll never comprehend any situation with any nuance. In your mind it's always "WW2 USA GOOD GUYS SAVED WORLD" like some lead-poisoned brain damaged boomer desperately trying to live voraciously through low-rent nationalist propaganda. I'd say, yes, America was the lesser of two evils compared to Nazi Germany and Japan, and the fact that's the closest you can get to "good" and the political parties you need to compare yourself to, to look better in comparison to someone, proves Infamousblt's point.
The closest to "objectively good" America's actions has been in a situation is "well, it's not as bad as letting Nazi Germany take over all of Europe" and that's not good, that's horror.
That's just the largest example that comes to mind.
I thought the question was 'has the US done any good actions,' which would qualify WWII. If instead the question was asking 'has the US done any actions that are entirely and completely perfect' I would say no nation has.
deleted by creator
You want to explain that giant limbo to me? The US wasn't even in on the treaty of Versailles if that's what you're taking about.
american capitalists had a hand in funding hitler and mussolini's rise to power
So that makes them entirely the US's fault? Capitalists and communists in many countries helped cause their rise to power.
communists, well known for putting fascists into power
oh woe is me I seemed to have dropped this
Everything causes everything. Scare against communism allowed fascism to gain a foothold faster.
and because capitalists hate communism so much they immediately turned to fascism, that somehow makes communism the enemy?
"It is the heart of US policy to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to save democracy from communism." -Michael Parenti.
Everything effects everything. You can draw a line of causation from anything from reactions or trickle down effects.
bro then capitalism is more evil than communism, since it direct ties to fascism. You are proving me right with sheer idiocy.
how does this attribute any crimes to communism?
My brain is trying to process how monumentally stupid you are being.
Good luck!
i'll need it, you seem to just be on drugs at this point
Nope never done them
You should try then, might make you less of a shithead
This is now officially a tantrum
Did you get locked up or something? You're just repeating yourself now
No shit. Guess who pioneered this view of history? Fucking Marx
It makes you wonder what kind of people turn to fascism because they're scared of communism. I wonder. I wonder....
Who created these scares?
You're just saying that because "both sides" feels true to you. It's not, though. Communists in Germany were the bitterest opponents of the Nazis, before the latter even had a strong party formation. And as the first line of the poem goes, Communists were the first ones "they" came for (although this is usually omitted in liberal retellings".
If you've ever heard of Antonio Gramsci you know that imprisoning or killing communists was the first order of business under Mussolini.
You can name any country that went fascist, and we can point out where the capitalists were easing it along and the communists were fighting it tooth and nail.
Entirely? No. But they do bear a lot of the burden.
Probably the Italians and Germans were a bit involved too, obviously ww2 is not entirely the fault of America but they were some giant fucking dominoes that fell.
The US however was very stringent in demanding repayment for all weapons it provided to UK and France, with interest, which necessitated those countries being harsh with Germany over war reparations in turn. German war reparations essentially all flowed to America, to say they weren’t in on the treaty is true but it’s sleight of hand ignoring the role US played in dictating the economic direction of Europe through its role as creditor.
Then, you had US industrialists funding and working with the Nazis as they rose to power.
This is an absurd take, regardless of its veracity (do you have a source?).
The budgets of the French and British governments are not the responsibility of the US, and there is no reasonable argument that would have justified forgiving those loans. The UK and France were harsh with Germany because they hated and feared Germany and wanted revenge after World War 1.
I have absolutely no doubt that you would be even more outraged if the US had indeed forgiven its wartime loans to Britain and France after WW1. I'm not sure what your angle would be, but it would probably be more persuasive than your current argument 😉
The book Super Imperialism by Michael Hudson gets into this in depth with all the receipts. It was common practice in Europe that debts incurred by wartime allies were forgiven, so it was actually breaking with all precedent that the US demanded full repayment with interest from their allies, and the circular flow of payments from US banks to postwar Germany, to the European allies and back to the US is clearly documented and laid out by Hudson in his book. This is an arrangement that was intentional and beneficial to the United States at the expense of Europe, until it came crashing down when the financial bubble it created popped and the Great Depression resulted.
How can a take be “absurd regardless of its veracity”. Literally stating the truth is “absurd” if it reflects poorly on the United States? Do you find yourself overwhelmed living in such an absurd world (this one, where the United States is objectively a bad actor)?
"It can be cold, regardless of the temperature"
Thank you for providing a source.
The reason I say it's absurd regardless of veracity is because it was not a valid geopolitical option. The US was still pursuing an isolationist foreign policy in the eyes of the public, it would have been political suicide to forgive those loans. The fact that we got involved at all was already shocking to Americans, if we then waived repayment it would have been a national outrage.
Also, I that I highly doubt that the US decision to demand repayment of the loans is notably outside of the bounds of normal international conduct. I haven't read that book so I can't say for sure, but I have a hunch that you're making a false equivalency somewhere.
Perhaps this is the reason, because the US was less of a wartime ally and more of a savior. The US was under absolutely no military threat, and thus viewing the loans as part of some kind of collective wartime struggle is quite the stretch.
The U.S wasn’t really implementing an isolationist policy, and never has since its inception. (Certainly not prior to WW1 when they had just finished going to war with Spain to take over its colonies, nor during nor after WW1 when they sent troops to a different Latin American country every single year to impose their will). It was just brutal realpolitik.
“Isolationism” vs free trade and free markets, the US government and ruling class just does whatever benefits itself the most. Hence, other countries need to open up their markets to US exports post WW1 but the U.S. will simultaneously levy protectionist tariffs so that European goods can’t be competitive in the US market. Germany had no recourse but to borrow more money from US banks to pay their reparations, so that UK can turn around and give that money back to the US government. The only other way for these governments to meet their payments to the US was to impose austerity and wring the money out of their own domestic population (which they also did, also a contributing factor to the turmoil which eventually led to another world war).
I don’t buy this “aw shucks we would love to forgive the debt or interest but we just can’t sell that to our domestic masses who care a lot about fiscal policy”. They did it because it directly benefited them (the ruling class and their state). They made massive profits off of the entire arrangement. Nothing mysterious about their motivations there. A better topic of discussion is would the European powers agreed to pay up, when that actually went against their own interests (look where it got them!)
You'd be shocked to hear what this site's position is on most state loans in general, especially ones originating from Western countries.
I'm not sure that any positions taken by this site are likely to shock me at this point 😅
But sure, try me.
We advocate for the forgiveness of all IMF loans, as they are primarily a way of exacting concessions against governments of underdeveloped countries, privatizing their industry for the profits of multinational companies and cementing theor economies as subordinate.
One example is Haiti, where upon their independence France extorted them for tens of multiples of their GDP, purportedly for the "cost" incurred, and were in debt for 2 centuries.
Rather than providing net aid, the quantity of money going from the Global South to the Global North, yearly, is over 10% of the GDP of Global South countries.
We aren't too concerned with Britain and France getting repaid on any international debts when they're so far ahead, at other countries' expense, to begin with.
What the fuck does
even mean? How about “these countries were just destroyed by war and can’t reasonably be expected to pay”?
Governments can and do forgive loans when they feel it’s appropriate. The U.S. made a conscious decision to wield its creditor status without mercy to further crush Europe and solidify its own position as top global power.
Yeah which is why they should have told US to stuff it with its ridiculous demands for payment lol
See my other reply
https://redsails.org/the-international-origins-of-nazism/
At fault I was interpreting as majority. And it seems like people should be accountable for their actions even if they aren't entirely original.
How many American corporations did business with Hitler?
Was the US being in ww2 good? Probably not. Not just becoming a rogue nation and using WMDs on civilians but the money we stole from Europe went on to pay for us doing several genocides. So on balance it isn't great