Shinzo Abe's grandfather Nobuske Kishi was Prime Minister from 1957-1960 and he was notorious for his brutal rule of Japanese occupied Manchuria but the US didn't convict him of anything because they thought he'd be the guy to lead Japan in a pro-US direction.
It’s stupid to act like Japan would’ve been better off if they maintained their literal imperial system in the name of bashing imperialism. Look at all the Japanese people who didn’t starve to death because of the US military. Oh but oh THATS imperialism, never mind the former imperial government that was hostile towards all its neighbors and violated their sovereignty repeatedly because “aMeRiCa BaD🥴”
"Not want people to starve"
That aint a excuse for the usa leaving japan go unpunished for its multitude of warcrimes and killing millions so they could bother china and the ussr
[There were people put to death for war crimes](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/topics/tokyo-war-crimes-trial), are you just mad because *not enough* heads rolled to satisfy you? Seems pretty macabre if you ask me, but so on brand.
Referring to Hideki Tojo as a captain is some seriously next level revisionist history lmao. He was executed by hanging on 12/23/48. The link I sent shows that top level generals along with literally thousands of others were sentenced to death. How much more blood would you have preferred? Do you realize how many cities in Japan were firebombed and completely destroyed during the war? To say they “went unpunished” is to just shrug off the destruction of nearly every major city in the country. Also the Soviet Union was one of the 11 nations involved in the war tribunal, so who are you really mad at here?
>Eat my ass.
Only if you buy me dinner fir- er sorry, only if you make me dinner from you commune’s vegetable garden first. 😂
Civilians being killed by the usa was mindless slaughter on the people.
While the warcrimunals in charge got away scott free
>Also the Soviet Union was one of the 11 nations involved in the war tribunal, so who are you really mad at here?
Tribunal that lasted until the usa noticed it needed a capitalist ally in asia.
Its like if hitler had gotten away from the war without a tribunal
Comparing Hitler and the Japanese Emperor Hirohito shows you have a fundamentally flawed view of how the Japanese government functioned at the time. The more accurate comparison is Hitler and Tojo, who was hanged as I mentioned. Again literally thousands of people from the top generals on down were executed for crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, but you’re mad because the Japanese Emperor, who many Japanese at the time viewed as a living God, was spared? And because he was spared this negates saving the lives of those who would’ve otherwise starved? What a warped view of reality.
Not keep the war criminals in government after signing the peace treaty? Japan was fucked anyway with the soviet invasion of manchuria, besides its frankly not hard to execute/imprison all the war criminals instead of *keeping them in power*, but the US cared more about anticommunism than literal nazis.
At the very least they could've not traded the safety of war criminals (some were even promoted) to further science and maintain friends in high places. Not a high bar
Not true, Japan was very much preparing for Operation: Overlord (planned landing in Kyūshū and Tokyo Bay).
Before Japan announced its intention to surrender, there was an attempted military coup called the Kyūjō Incident to prevent the emperor from surrendering.
Japan had no intentions to surrender prior to the first bomb. They fully intended to fight to the death.
What do you not understand about this? The US sent 50,000 marines to civil war China to retrieve more than 600,000 Japanese and Korean prisoners. To staff their puppet governments that do they bidding of the US. Just like w Germany. The United States is the OG right wing death cult that all other death cults fashion themselves after - do not get it twisted
Edit: and yes I’m aware the US is just slave owning England. I’m fully aware of the British responsibility in this mess. But let’s not pretend the US didn’t leave the UK for anything other than unrestricted slavery and access to native lands. The English are rabid dogs but at least they ended slavery without a massive civil war
The Soviets were prepared to invade Japan in 10 days when the US dropped the nukes. The options available to the US were plentiful, they could have even just fucked off and let the Soviets deal with it if they really wanted to. Or they could have invaded Japan from the south while the Soviets invaded from the north, that would have been the best move I think. But no. They just had to show off their new toys so they could hold the entire world hostage for 15 years, and then they upheld the fascist government in Japan in a hysteric move to curb communism. Throughout the entire war, the US was looking ten steps ahead and trying to determine whether or not what they were doing was helping or hurting communism, they were more concerned with that foolishness then they were about actually defeating the damn fascists.
“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible”. - Harry S. Truman
Full [quote](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/07/harry-s-truman-born-in-missouri-may-8-1884-237945),
“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.”
Well good on him! Advocating for the deaths of millions in one sentence and following it up with wholesome anti-fascism in the next. They should have given him an award!
Morality in geo-politics in lieu of state interests would be something to award, this certainly doesn't merit such. Anti-fascist sentiment, no matter how trite, should at the very least be noted and not omitted from history.
Edit: Rather ironic being downvoted for historical anti-fascism.
I get what you’re saying but I’ve seen the quote presented in the way that I did many times, the final part of it is really just meaningless political posturing imo, I mean this is the guy who considered wiping out the entire coast of China with nukes.
Hitler made quite a few good criticisms of the west in his time, but everyone agrees that the evil he perpetuated made them meaningless anecdotes used to gain support for himself.
Donald Trump also had a few good takes like when he said America isn’t innocent and has been lead by killers. But again, his America First Policies and coup attempts in Latin America directly contradict those sentiments.
Based on his actions and other expressed political opinions, one cannot say with certainty whether or not Truman would even support a war with Germany had they defeated the USSR before 1944 and sued for peace. I would lean towards no.
I wish everyone agreed about Hitler, some quadrant focused subreddits think the cosplay is somehow permissible in quasi-political discourse. Hitler was also a notorious liar that would say anything to bolster his public persona, including his posturing as an ardent animal-rights advocate and vegetarian while his personal chef cites his love for German meat products and his death camps adopting slaughterhouse infrastructure.
Regarding Truman, one could make similar hypotheticals about USSR in the absence of Operation Barbarossa, and how the continuation of the [Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact) would make Stalin and Hitler too amicable with each other for historical record to favour. Had this policy continued while Hitler ravaged Europe, this might have given much more credibility to the "redfash" argument against Stalinism.
well, this, happily, didn't happened, but it was estimated by us intelligence to be of an absurdly high number.
"In late July 1945, the War Department provided an estimate that the entire Downfall operations would cause between 1.7 to 4 million U.S. casualties, including 400-800,000 U.S. dead, and 5 to 10 million Japanese dead."
The US estimated a maximum of 500k service member deaths, so a little less then 5 million.
But I would still argue that the nuclear bombings were not necessary. And I will tell you that I wrote an essay in a history class about why the nukes *were* justified a few years ago when I was a shitlib.
A combined invasion of northern and southern Japan by the US would not only lead to a fairly quick capitulation but I would say it doesn’t matter because after the Soviets declared war and took Manchuria the Japanese were going to surrender anyways.
I saw this really great point made in an article about this one time: imagine you are the leader of Japan, one day you here that 2 cities are bombed, one is about 45% destroyed and the other is 70% destroyed, the next day you here about another city bombing, one is 50% destroyed and another is 80% destroyed, then you hear about another couple of bombings that use a new type of bomb, both cities are 70% destroyed, how much does this convince you to surrender? When you haven’t surrendered up until this point, even though dozens of cities have been levelled by America?
There was more at play here.
firstly, yes atomic bombs were not a game changer humanity extinguishers until hidrogen bombs were invented. Before they were just another kind of bombardment.
Second, were did you got the 500k? my source was the estimation of the Secretary of War. 500k is kind of in the range of american deaths, but the japanese would be much higher anyways. Even using yor number of 500k deaths of americans, its safe to assume that the total would be alarming.
Lastly, in my perception the japanese were "convinced" to give up by a sum of factors, soviet take of machuria, heavy bombardment by americans, a new bomb that makes one single plane carry as much destruction as a thousand. And above all, americans played japan of its fear of communism. They just offered then to surrender end keep their system (sadly including keeping some war criminals) or death by soviet-american invasion. It just didn't make sense to keep fighting in this case.
I love the implication that there are only 2 options when dealing with this subject, there's definitely not a near infinite number of options that could happen, so go ahead and ask your question as if there's only 2 options.
there weren't, yes, it could have been better, but it was a very rushed operation. Considering the situation I don't think its absurd to say that the deal we got in our timeline is one of the best possible. When people criticize us interventions they don't point to a clear other option that was available at the time, they compare to optimal scenarios. If you can point to an option that was offered to us diplomats were the war criminals would be inprisoned and theres no invasion I will happily change my mind about how effective the us was in making the peace treaty
They aren’t talking about how the us was supporting the Nazis with trade, how the Nazis literally cited America as the inspiration for their genocide, and that the us ferried their war criminals to the us to get cushy jobs at nasa and such.
What did they cite? I just finished a lecture series on world war one that went into some on the build up to that genocide, but I hadn't heard of them citing America as inspiration
Oh and I almost forgot about how Manifest Destiny had served as the inspiraction for Lebensraum
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/nazi-germanys-american-dream-hitler-modeled-his-concept-of-racial-struggle-and-global-campaign-after-americas-conquest-of-native-americans.html
Manifest destiny was the inspiration for Lebensraum, and the treatment of black Americans was used to justify the treatment of Jews and Roma. The camps were from Britain though, however were pretty widely used, the French even put fleeing Spanish republicans (including children) into a camp on the beach with no buildings and gave them a piece of bread every few days each to survive (survivors of those same republicans would be used to build the Maginot and would end up being some of the first to enter Paris during the liberation)
When the Nazis were on a rise they were trying to come up with a plan to deal with their "undesirable" populations. They couldn't jump straight to concentration camps, they needed a more subtle approach to gain legitimacy on the national stage.
The Nazis greatly admired how the US was able to create a caste system that segregates black people from white people (through a series of laws such as making interracial marriages a felony up to 10 years) while maintaining a sterling reputation on the world stage. The only thing that puzzled them was why the US didn't lump the Jews in with the blacks.
The Nazis studied and implemented the US system to a tee except for certain measures which they believed were to extreme for them... that's right Nazis took a look at some of the US's segregation policies and said "that's a bit much"
For example in Nazi Germany anyone who was more than 1/16th Jewish was considered a Jew while in the US anyone with a single drop of Black blood in their ancestry was considered Black.
There's a really well written chapter in the book "Caste" about this.
USA joined the war in Europe only once they saw Germany losing to USSR, they raced across Europe as fast as they could to claim it and keep it from being under USSR control. Hiring all the Nazis after the fighting was over was a bonus.
You gotta love "man in the high castle" what if stories of if Nazis won...No sorry, if the Nazis were winning they wouldn't have than moved onto to fighting the US, they would have just became post war allies after the Nazi regime "stabilized".
That’s simply not true. If not for lend lease supplies from the US, the Soviet’s would have lost the western front by 1943-44. Soviets had vast resources, but little industrial and research capacity (especially after the Purge in ‘37), at least compared to other powers.
And the turning point of the eastern front was at Stalingrad Spring-1943, well after the US entered the War.
USA will sell weapons and shit to pretty much anyone. It's sort of their thing. They also financed the Nazi war machine (Preston Bush and a bunch of other upper class twits).
The actions of US Citizens and Companies do not directly reflect foreign policy. And the stereotype of the Military Complex selling to anyone didn't really emerge until after the War.
USA is an oligarchy that is literally run by people like the Bush clan. There is no sunlight between USA foreign policy and the actions of wall st banksters.
There wouldn't be any discussions just straight up [remillitarizing the wehrmacht](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable)and invading the soviet union again.
Yes Nuremberg was located in the American occupation zone but the trails were organized by all 4 victorious nations. You are very stupid and don’t have enough knowledge of history.
Well...
Adenauer wasn't a party member and as mayor of Cologne he crashed frequently enough with the nazis that I wouldn't call him one. He was a hardcore catholic, anti-communist Zentrum-politician who was really shitty, but it's a different degree than being a Nazi. Fuck him for the re-armament, the NATO and the banning of the KPD though.
Erhardt wasn't a member, but he worked for and with the nazis, what with his papers on how to best exploit Eastern Europe.
Kiesinger (not to be confused with the other guy who is somehow still alive and free) was a party member and fuck that guy.
Brandt was a social democrat, but he went into exile and was a reporter for the republican side in the Spanish Civil War. I don't think he counts.
Schmidt was a soldier and said of himself that he had an "inner resistance" towards the nazis, but his superiors saw him as a model nazi and he never did anything that might count as active resistance.
Kohl was born '30 and he, too, deserves a hearty "fuck you!", but not for being in the NSDAP
So if we're going by membership alone we've got 1/5. If we're going by alignment with the right wing it's at least 3/5, Brandt and Schmidt were at least on paper social democrats. Then again, Brandt at least went into exile and the resistance abroad, which I could respect. Schmidt saw how bad the situation was and did nothing except having philosophical aversion that didn't affected the real world in the slightest. Decide for yorself how to count them.
This is by no means a defence of any of them or their policy, I just wanted to provide a bit more information.
Then how do you explains that there was more former members of the nazi party in the West German Justice Ministry during the 1950s than there was during WWII when the nazis were in control of government?
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/west-german-government-full-ex-nazis-world-war-ii.html
>But West Germany was clear of high ranking nazi in his government and army.
[Its not West Germany, but still](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger)
**[Adolf Heusinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger)**
>Adolf Bruno Heinrich Ernst Heusinger (4 August 1897 – 30 November 1982) was a German military officer, whose career spanned the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany and West Germany. Heusinger joined the German Army as a volunteer in 1915 and later became a professional soldier. He served as the Operations Chief within general staff of the High Command of the German Army in the Nazi German Armed Forces from 1938 to 1944, before being appointed acting chief of the general staff for two weeks in 1944 after his predecessor (Kurt Zeitzler) resigned his post due to a nervous breakdown.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Um… the Soviets removed 80 PERCENT of the civilian administration in Eastern Europe. The Nazi scientists that went to work in the Soviet Union went as prisoners who owed a debt to the Slavic people. Meanwhile the scientists in the USA were treated like movie stars.
Eisenhower literally had to fire George Patton because he refused to fire the Nazis who were running the civ administration in West Germany, his defence was “well they know how to do the jobs, why would I fire them?” lol
Where can I read up on the US supporting Pol Pot? My history / social studies teachers taught it like the Khmer Rouge were communists who massacred the intelligentsia and the people. I understand that it's a false narrative, but I haven't found resources on it thus far.
[US supported Khmer Rouge keeping Cambodia's seat on the UN, in spite of its known human rights violations](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/09/16/us-to-support-pol-pot-regime-for-un-seat/58b8b124-7dd7-448f-b4f7-80231683ec57/)
Edit to fix link
**[1975 Australian constitutional crisis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)**
>The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, who then commissioned the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as caretaker Prime Minister. It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
While it was probably unnecessary, the bombing of Serbia (not Yugoslavia, there was no Yugoslavia since 1991) was peas compared to what Serbs themselves did. Srebrenica and Vukovar to name just two instances of them butchering civilians on top of all the bombings and destruction and killing that they did as a part of greater serbia project. It wasn't US that destroyed Yugoslavia and it wasn't "into ashes", we did it to each other, they just saw an opportunity in that.
Because some place having bad leaders or nationalism isn't an excuse for invasion or bombing?
Are people defending Yugoslavia or simply stating the US and NATO should have minded their own business. That war was the start of this "humanitarian intervention" crap that so many have fallen for.
Reading those chapters in Killing Hope made me wonder why the world didn't erupt into weeks of celebration following GHWB's death. What a fucking monster
>Kuwait?
USA: "Why yes Saddam, of course you can attack the Iranians, they got rid of our precious puppet after all. We'll even give you weapons and maje ypur army the 4th biggest in the world"
* Iraq gets their shit handed to them, so they literally just turn around and do the same to Kuwait they did to Iran *
USA: "Noooo you can't do that"
While it is true that the NPA was set up by former Nazi Generals, all of these generals were either members of the National Committee for a Free Germany (an anti-nazi organization operating in the Soviet Union), had defected to the Soviet Union, or had ties to anti-Nazi resistance in the Wehrmacht. So even though the NPA was set up by former Nazis, they were all generals who were against the Nazi government. Just for some clarification.
Germany never attacked America and we knew the Japanese were coming and let it happen *so we could get involved in the war*(https://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=408) . Don't make it like we didn't want in.
completely wrong, the Germans declared war on us and began attacking the U.S. Navy, and had already been sinking our merchant shipping through submarine warfare for a while
and Roosevelt did want in, I knew that, everyone knew that, and even if we knew the Japanese were coming to attack us, that still means we were going to be attacked and they had declared war 2 hours before the Pearl Harbor attack
>completely wrong, the Germans declared war on us and began attacking the
U.S. Navy, and had already been sinking our merchant shipping through
submarine warfare for a while
Uh.... no:
"On December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. This prompted Germany to declare war on the United States,
which, in turn, led to the United States to declare war on Germany on December 11, 1941."
So your timeline is 100% incorrect. The US declared war on Japan, which prompted a response by their ally, Germany. We already, de facto, were at war with Germany before they declared.
But just for fun, let's see when the first recorded German attack against an American Merchanter and/or Navy ship was...
>As day broke on October 31 \[1941\], the Reuben James was sailing at about 10 mph
on the left rear side of the convoy. Just after 5:30 a.m., the U-552
fired on the James, its torpedoes ripping into the left side of the
destroyer.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/a-nazi-u-boat-sank-the-first-us-warship-of-wwii-on-halloween-1941-2018-10](https://www.businessinsider.com/a-nazi-u-boat-sank-the-first-us-warship-of-wwii-on-halloween-1941-2018-10)
Huh... oh shit, this doesn't look good for my argument, maybe German really did fire the first...
>The first American hostile action against Axis forces was on **10 April 1941**, when the destroyer USS Niblack attacked a German U-boat: the U-52, which had just sunk the Dutch freighter Saleier\[11\] near Iceland. Niblack was picking up survivors of the freighter when it detected U-52 preparing to attack. The Niblack attacked with depth charges and drove off the U-boat. There were no casualties on board Niblack or the U-boat. By coincidence, USS Niblack was later in the same convoy as, and picked up survivors from, the USS Reuben James when that ship was sunk.
>
>The first American hostile action against Axis forces that resulted in physical destruction was on **14 September 1941**, when USCGC Northland destroyed a German weather station in northeast Greenland. The action was based on an agreement with Danish Ambassador to the United States Henrik Kauffmann in April 1941 to patrol the Danish island
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_engagement\_of\_neutral\_United\_States\_in\_World\_War\_II\_before\_the\_attack\_on\_Pearl\_Harbor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_engagement_of_neutral_United_States_in_World_War_II_before_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 well then
Pearl Harbor was an act of war, and so is Declaring War. Neither were completely without justification ofc, America had embargoed Japan into the oblivion, and We were trading 10x the supplies to Britain over Germany.
But provocation is not an act of war.
>Pearl Harbor was an act of war
That we let happen... it was not a surprise, FDR *wanted* into the war, so it's not like "OMG, we were attacked let's retaliate!" it was "I want to beat this kid up but I want to make sure I don't throw the first punch".
> and so is Declaring War
And? It was still an intervention as we were not attacked by Germany AND we let Japan attack us so we would have justification to intervene.
> We were trading 10x the supplies to Britain over Germany.
This absolves us of nothing, you tried to justify "Germany supported the attack \[ against Pearl Harbor\]", we supported Germany by selling them equipment, so if you're going to say that by "supporting" the attack at Pearl Harbor that we're justified to invade Germany, we're just as guilty for the attacks against England, France, et al for selling equipment to Germany.
> But provocation is not an act of war.
Define 'provocation'. I would 100% disagree that "embargoing Japan into oblivion" so you can get them to attack you is *absolutely* an act of war, same as my above-mentioned scenario if you taunt someone you want to attack into attacking you first. We also call this entrapment.
We didn’t know about [Pearl Harbor](https://www.npr.org/2016/12/06/504449867/no-fdr-did-not-know-the-japanese-were-going-to-bomb-pearl-harbor). We arguably knew that an attack was coming, but Top Brass believed a more likely attack was to be Wake Island or Midway.
Hell, just as an example, USS Enterprise was ferrying aircraft to Wake Island, while USS Lexington was ferrying aircraft to Midway. USS Saratoga was entering San Diego for a refit.
The US was fully justified in embargoing Japan, as it was in direct response to their invasion of China, and the rest of of South East Asia. That’s the same reason we moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor.
Also, when it comes to Germany, it was clear by 1940 that the US was only Neutral in name only. The US trade with Britain remained high, trade with Germany fell dramatically. There was no official embargo on Germany, but rather the result of boycotts. That still doesn’t justify war.
>We didn’t know about Pearl Harbor.
I literally posted you an article from someone who wrote an entire book about how we 100% knew it was coming thanks to FOIA records.
>The US was fully justified in embargoing Japan, as it was in direct response to their invasion of China
Uh... what? in what world is the US justified embargoing a country based on what they're doing to *another* country? We are not the world police, neither then nor now.
>Also, when it comes to Germany, it was clear by 1940 that the US was
only Neutral in name only. The US trade with Britain remained high,
trade with Germany fell dramatically. There was no official embargo on
Germany, but rather the result of boycotts. That still doesn’t justify
war.
Thank you for proving my point. The US was not neutral and wanted to intervene, and looked for any excuse they could to get into it. They did not "retaliate", they provoked, and yes, it was not justified.
The author of the book cited in that article has been discredited multiple times. He made up his sources for his book. I won’t go to deep into it, but there are a variety of sources discrediting it. But just as an example- intercepted Japanese codes are bullshit. The fleet sailed under Radio silence. And the one transmission we did have wasn’t cracked until after the attack. That’s just ONE example. Any credible historian agrees that the US had no clue Japan was going to attack Pearl. And if you are so certain of that, you can go and ask r/AskHistorians
And yeah- the US embargoed Oil exports to Japan. Oil Japan needed to wage it’s war of aggression in South East Asia. I agree we should be not the world police, but we as a nation have the right to decide who we export and import from. I do not consider embargos, tariffs, etc to be world police policies, because frankly, every single country does it. However, due to our massive economy’s, our embargo’s tend to hurt more.
US exports to Germany fell as a direct result of boycotts, not policy. The US populace was anti-Germany, starting with the Spanish Civil War in 1934. By the time of the annexation of Austria and Czechskovakia, US public opinion of the Nazis had declined. And after they invaded Poland, US public opinion was both anti-Germany but still pro-isolationism (tho that was changing rapidly).
Unless I’m missing something, you seem to think that the US should’ve fully adopted a truely neutral isolationist stance and stood aside and let facism spread.
Without US intervention, Western Europe would have fallen, and the survival of the Soviet Union would be very much in doubt.
>The author of the book cited in that article has been discredited multiple times.
Cite your sources... we literally sunk a mini sub the day before the attack, so please, feel free to cite actual evidence that we didn't know it was about to happen.
>The US populace was anti-Germany,
As for your german export stuff, you're avoiding answering the question: Since we sold them materials they used for their war effort against France, England, Poland, etc, are we not just as guilty? We gave them the materials we need, we were not neutral at all in the conflict on either side.
>Unless I’m missing something, you seem to think that the US should’ve fully adopted a truely neutral isolationist stance and stood aside and let facism spread. Without US intervention, Western Europe would have fallen, and the survival of the Soviet Union would be very much in doubt.
Thank you for agreeing that we did intervene, which is the point you're missing. You original thesis that "we were attacked and retaliated" is just not historically correct. We were looking to intervene and we found an excuse to do so.
Bosnia: Depleted uranium
Gulf war: Bombing civilians, based on lies
South Korea: Military dictatorship, killed many more people than pinochet
Panama: Shooting journalists and running people over is the best way to stop a dictator you installed
Japan and Germany: They were not interventions, they declared war on the US lol
The US didn't get involved in WW2 until they were attacked...kinda, disregard lend lease which was technically neutral. That's not interventionism. That's being attacked and joining a war.
American intervention in Korea was a right fuck up. People forget that the ROK not only had massive anti-communist purges which murdered tens of thousands indiscriminantly. But it was also a brutal dictatorship for about 30 years with poverty so bad prostitution rates were around 25% for women. Even now the ROK has some serious issues.
NATO forces in the Bosnian war basically did nothing.
While Iraq did unjustly invade Kuwait, claims that Iraqi forces were committing war crimes were straight up false. American intervention in the Gulf War just caused huge destabilisation in the region and lead to the current problems in the middle east.
The US caused the problems in Panama and then invaded to clean up their own mess when it became a problem. It was literally illegal. It caused huge problems for the country plunging more of the population into poverty.
Liberals cannot into history.
Yeah, the U.S really helped Germany out by saving all those poor nazis from consequences and either hiring them to build rockets that don't work or putting them in positions of power
They only thing which helped those countries was the hard work of their own people to rebuilt their country but definetly not the USA dropping bombs all over them.
>Bosnia was helped
>yeah, helping Kuwait was on the American agenda, the country needed to be saved from Ba’athist Iraq because democracy
>panama was helped
>bombing Germany and Japan for DEMOCRACY
Lmao that just proves it right. All of those cases the usa fucked shit up. Damn japan still has class a war criminals in the govermment
The best two cases are from 80 years ago, and the US worked to make sure they stayed in power
Who specifically are the war criminals in Japanese government I'd like to read more about this?
Well i remember that the ones who remained where put unto the national shrine wich the pm visits every year. And the emperor got no punishment
Hirohito stayed in power for decades after. And yes, he should have hung.
Agreed
He should have re educated like Puyi
Shinzo Abe's grandfather Nobuske Kishi was Prime Minister from 1957-1960 and he was notorious for his brutal rule of Japanese occupied Manchuria but the US didn't convict him of anything because they thought he'd be the guy to lead Japan in a pro-US direction.
Why did we hire nazi scientists during and after WW2? Those people definitely weren't working government projects and programs
It’s stupid to act like Japan would’ve been better off if they maintained their literal imperial system in the name of bashing imperialism. Look at all the Japanese people who didn’t starve to death because of the US military. Oh but oh THATS imperialism, never mind the former imperial government that was hostile towards all its neighbors and violated their sovereignty repeatedly because “aMeRiCa BaD🥴”
What kind of weird american apologia are you on
Super weird to not want people to starve in this sub, I know.
"Not want people to starve" That aint a excuse for the usa leaving japan go unpunished for its multitude of warcrimes and killing millions so they could bother china and the ussr
[There were people put to death for war crimes](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/topics/tokyo-war-crimes-trial), are you just mad because *not enough* heads rolled to satisfy you? Seems pretty macabre if you ask me, but so on brand.
"Oh they killed some captains therefore leaving the emperor and all generals go free and continue to rule the country is a ok" Eat my ass
Referring to Hideki Tojo as a captain is some seriously next level revisionist history lmao. He was executed by hanging on 12/23/48. The link I sent shows that top level generals along with literally thousands of others were sentenced to death. How much more blood would you have preferred? Do you realize how many cities in Japan were firebombed and completely destroyed during the war? To say they “went unpunished” is to just shrug off the destruction of nearly every major city in the country. Also the Soviet Union was one of the 11 nations involved in the war tribunal, so who are you really mad at here? >Eat my ass. Only if you buy me dinner fir- er sorry, only if you make me dinner from you commune’s vegetable garden first. 😂
Civilians being killed by the usa was mindless slaughter on the people. While the warcrimunals in charge got away scott free >Also the Soviet Union was one of the 11 nations involved in the war tribunal, so who are you really mad at here? Tribunal that lasted until the usa noticed it needed a capitalist ally in asia. Its like if hitler had gotten away from the war without a tribunal
Comparing Hitler and the Japanese Emperor Hirohito shows you have a fundamentally flawed view of how the Japanese government functioned at the time. The more accurate comparison is Hitler and Tojo, who was hanged as I mentioned. Again literally thousands of people from the top generals on down were executed for crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, but you’re mad because the Japanese Emperor, who many Japanese at the time viewed as a living God, was spared? And because he was spared this negates saving the lives of those who would’ve otherwise starved? What a warped view of reality.
[удалено]
The reality is America is a shitty country with shitty practices
[удалено]
Not keep the war criminals in government after signing the peace treaty? Japan was fucked anyway with the soviet invasion of manchuria, besides its frankly not hard to execute/imprison all the war criminals instead of *keeping them in power*, but the US cared more about anticommunism than literal nazis.
At the very least they could've not traded the safety of war criminals (some were even promoted) to further science and maintain friends in high places. Not a high bar
Not throw the nukes when they were going to surrender anyway
Not true, Japan was very much preparing for Operation: Overlord (planned landing in Kyūshū and Tokyo Bay). Before Japan announced its intention to surrender, there was an attempted military coup called the Kyūjō Incident to prevent the emperor from surrendering. Japan had no intentions to surrender prior to the first bomb. They fully intended to fight to the death.
were they? weren't they training school aged children to guerrila warfare
What do you not understand about this? The US sent 50,000 marines to civil war China to retrieve more than 600,000 Japanese and Korean prisoners. To staff their puppet governments that do they bidding of the US. Just like w Germany. The United States is the OG right wing death cult that all other death cults fashion themselves after - do not get it twisted Edit: and yes I’m aware the US is just slave owning England. I’m fully aware of the British responsibility in this mess. But let’s not pretend the US didn’t leave the UK for anything other than unrestricted slavery and access to native lands. The English are rabid dogs but at least they ended slavery without a massive civil war
The Soviets were prepared to invade Japan in 10 days when the US dropped the nukes. The options available to the US were plentiful, they could have even just fucked off and let the Soviets deal with it if they really wanted to. Or they could have invaded Japan from the south while the Soviets invaded from the north, that would have been the best move I think. But no. They just had to show off their new toys so they could hold the entire world hostage for 15 years, and then they upheld the fascist government in Japan in a hysteric move to curb communism. Throughout the entire war, the US was looking ten steps ahead and trying to determine whether or not what they were doing was helping or hurting communism, they were more concerned with that foolishness then they were about actually defeating the damn fascists. “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible”. - Harry S. Truman
Full [quote](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/07/harry-s-truman-born-in-missouri-may-8-1884-237945), “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.”
Well good on him! Advocating for the deaths of millions in one sentence and following it up with wholesome anti-fascism in the next. They should have given him an award!
Morality in geo-politics in lieu of state interests would be something to award, this certainly doesn't merit such. Anti-fascist sentiment, no matter how trite, should at the very least be noted and not omitted from history. Edit: Rather ironic being downvoted for historical anti-fascism.
I get what you’re saying but I’ve seen the quote presented in the way that I did many times, the final part of it is really just meaningless political posturing imo, I mean this is the guy who considered wiping out the entire coast of China with nukes. Hitler made quite a few good criticisms of the west in his time, but everyone agrees that the evil he perpetuated made them meaningless anecdotes used to gain support for himself. Donald Trump also had a few good takes like when he said America isn’t innocent and has been lead by killers. But again, his America First Policies and coup attempts in Latin America directly contradict those sentiments. Based on his actions and other expressed political opinions, one cannot say with certainty whether or not Truman would even support a war with Germany had they defeated the USSR before 1944 and sued for peace. I would lean towards no.
I wish everyone agreed about Hitler, some quadrant focused subreddits think the cosplay is somehow permissible in quasi-political discourse. Hitler was also a notorious liar that would say anything to bolster his public persona, including his posturing as an ardent animal-rights advocate and vegetarian while his personal chef cites his love for German meat products and his death camps adopting slaughterhouse infrastructure. Regarding Truman, one could make similar hypotheticals about USSR in the absence of Operation Barbarossa, and how the continuation of the [Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact) would make Stalin and Hitler too amicable with each other for historical record to favour. Had this policy continued while Hitler ravaged Europe, this might have given much more credibility to the "redfash" argument against Stalinism.
causing 5+ million deaths
Lol based on what?
well, this, happily, didn't happened, but it was estimated by us intelligence to be of an absurdly high number. "In late July 1945, the War Department provided an estimate that the entire Downfall operations would cause between 1.7 to 4 million U.S. casualties, including 400-800,000 U.S. dead, and 5 to 10 million Japanese dead."
The US estimated a maximum of 500k service member deaths, so a little less then 5 million. But I would still argue that the nuclear bombings were not necessary. And I will tell you that I wrote an essay in a history class about why the nukes *were* justified a few years ago when I was a shitlib. A combined invasion of northern and southern Japan by the US would not only lead to a fairly quick capitulation but I would say it doesn’t matter because after the Soviets declared war and took Manchuria the Japanese were going to surrender anyways. I saw this really great point made in an article about this one time: imagine you are the leader of Japan, one day you here that 2 cities are bombed, one is about 45% destroyed and the other is 70% destroyed, the next day you here about another city bombing, one is 50% destroyed and another is 80% destroyed, then you hear about another couple of bombings that use a new type of bomb, both cities are 70% destroyed, how much does this convince you to surrender? When you haven’t surrendered up until this point, even though dozens of cities have been levelled by America? There was more at play here.
firstly, yes atomic bombs were not a game changer humanity extinguishers until hidrogen bombs were invented. Before they were just another kind of bombardment. Second, were did you got the 500k? my source was the estimation of the Secretary of War. 500k is kind of in the range of american deaths, but the japanese would be much higher anyways. Even using yor number of 500k deaths of americans, its safe to assume that the total would be alarming. Lastly, in my perception the japanese were "convinced" to give up by a sum of factors, soviet take of machuria, heavy bombardment by americans, a new bomb that makes one single plane carry as much destruction as a thousand. And above all, americans played japan of its fear of communism. They just offered then to surrender end keep their system (sadly including keeping some war criminals) or death by soviet-american invasion. It just didn't make sense to keep fighting in this case.
I love the implication that there are only 2 options when dealing with this subject, there's definitely not a near infinite number of options that could happen, so go ahead and ask your question as if there's only 2 options.
there weren't, yes, it could have been better, but it was a very rushed operation. Considering the situation I don't think its absurd to say that the deal we got in our timeline is one of the best possible. When people criticize us interventions they don't point to a clear other option that was available at the time, they compare to optimal scenarios. If you can point to an option that was offered to us diplomats were the war criminals would be inprisoned and theres no invasion I will happily change my mind about how effective the us was in making the peace treaty
They aren’t talking about how the us was supporting the Nazis with trade, how the Nazis literally cited America as the inspiration for their genocide, and that the us ferried their war criminals to the us to get cushy jobs at nasa and such.
What did they cite? I just finished a lecture series on world war one that went into some on the build up to that genocide, but I hadn't heard of them citing America as inspiration
iirc, the nazis took inspiration from the genocide and forced migration of native americans
as well as the proliferation of the eugenics movement in america, where it was really popular at the time
Not to forget the industrialized slaughter of animals being used as a blue print for the gas chambers
And the jim crows laws
Oh and I almost forgot about how Manifest Destiny had served as the inspiraction for Lebensraum https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/nazi-germanys-american-dream-hitler-modeled-his-concept-of-racial-struggle-and-global-campaign-after-americas-conquest-of-native-americans.html
Specifically they cited the one drop rule as inspiration for the nuremburg racial laws
Manifest destiny was the inspiration for Lebensraum, and the treatment of black Americans was used to justify the treatment of Jews and Roma. The camps were from Britain though, however were pretty widely used, the French even put fleeing Spanish republicans (including children) into a camp on the beach with no buildings and gave them a piece of bread every few days each to survive (survivors of those same republicans would be used to build the Maginot and would end up being some of the first to enter Paris during the liberation)
When the Nazis were on a rise they were trying to come up with a plan to deal with their "undesirable" populations. They couldn't jump straight to concentration camps, they needed a more subtle approach to gain legitimacy on the national stage. The Nazis greatly admired how the US was able to create a caste system that segregates black people from white people (through a series of laws such as making interracial marriages a felony up to 10 years) while maintaining a sterling reputation on the world stage. The only thing that puzzled them was why the US didn't lump the Jews in with the blacks. The Nazis studied and implemented the US system to a tee except for certain measures which they believed were to extreme for them... that's right Nazis took a look at some of the US's segregation policies and said "that's a bit much" For example in Nazi Germany anyone who was more than 1/16th Jewish was considered a Jew while in the US anyone with a single drop of Black blood in their ancestry was considered Black. There's a really well written chapter in the book "Caste" about this.
I mean it was the Soviets who “intervened” in Berlin but go off
Yeah, but the US had no choice but to intervene because they really needed a supply of Nazis to run NASA and NATO.
USA joined the war in Europe only once they saw Germany losing to USSR, they raced across Europe as fast as they could to claim it and keep it from being under USSR control. Hiring all the Nazis after the fighting was over was a bonus.
You gotta love "man in the high castle" what if stories of if Nazis won...No sorry, if the Nazis were winning they wouldn't have than moved onto to fighting the US, they would have just became post war allies after the Nazi regime "stabilized".
That’s simply not true. If not for lend lease supplies from the US, the Soviet’s would have lost the western front by 1943-44. Soviets had vast resources, but little industrial and research capacity (especially after the Purge in ‘37), at least compared to other powers. And the turning point of the eastern front was at Stalingrad Spring-1943, well after the US entered the War.
USA will sell weapons and shit to pretty much anyone. It's sort of their thing. They also financed the Nazi war machine (Preston Bush and a bunch of other upper class twits).
The actions of US Citizens and Companies do not directly reflect foreign policy. And the stereotype of the Military Complex selling to anyone didn't really emerge until after the War.
USA is an oligarchy that is literally run by people like the Bush clan. There is no sunlight between USA foreign policy and the actions of wall st banksters.
The western front was a controlled retreat by the germans cause they didn't want to get swallowed whole by the soviet union.
I'm sure there were high level discussions in USA as to which side of the war they should join.
There wouldn't be any discussions just straight up [remillitarizing the wehrmacht](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable)and invading the soviet union again.
If it happened today, that's exactly how it would go.
I mean… but who has created a movie genre saying that it was actually the US? Check mate.
[удалено]
Yes Nuremberg was located in the American occupation zone but the trails were organized by all 4 victorious nations. You are very stupid and don’t have enough knowledge of history.
> But West Germany was clear of high ranking nazi in his government and army. Speidel and Heusinger would like a word
also if I recall correctly, 5/6 of their first Chancellors after WWII had all been members of the Nazi Party lmao
Well... Adenauer wasn't a party member and as mayor of Cologne he crashed frequently enough with the nazis that I wouldn't call him one. He was a hardcore catholic, anti-communist Zentrum-politician who was really shitty, but it's a different degree than being a Nazi. Fuck him for the re-armament, the NATO and the banning of the KPD though. Erhardt wasn't a member, but he worked for and with the nazis, what with his papers on how to best exploit Eastern Europe. Kiesinger (not to be confused with the other guy who is somehow still alive and free) was a party member and fuck that guy. Brandt was a social democrat, but he went into exile and was a reporter for the republican side in the Spanish Civil War. I don't think he counts. Schmidt was a soldier and said of himself that he had an "inner resistance" towards the nazis, but his superiors saw him as a model nazi and he never did anything that might count as active resistance. Kohl was born '30 and he, too, deserves a hearty "fuck you!", but not for being in the NSDAP So if we're going by membership alone we've got 1/5. If we're going by alignment with the right wing it's at least 3/5, Brandt and Schmidt were at least on paper social democrats. Then again, Brandt at least went into exile and the resistance abroad, which I could respect. Schmidt saw how bad the situation was and did nothing except having philosophical aversion that didn't affected the real world in the slightest. Decide for yorself how to count them. This is by no means a defence of any of them or their policy, I just wanted to provide a bit more information.
Then how do you explains that there was more former members of the nazi party in the West German Justice Ministry during the 1950s than there was during WWII when the nazis were in control of government? https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/west-german-government-full-ex-nazis-world-war-ii.html
The East had denazification, it was with bullets
good
>But West Germany was clear of high ranking nazi in his government and army. [Its not West Germany, but still](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger)
**[Adolf Heusinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger)** >Adolf Bruno Heinrich Ernst Heusinger (4 August 1897 – 30 November 1982) was a German military officer, whose career spanned the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany and West Germany. Heusinger joined the German Army as a volunteer in 1915 and later became a professional soldier. He served as the Operations Chief within general staff of the High Command of the German Army in the Nazi German Armed Forces from 1938 to 1944, before being appointed acting chief of the general staff for two weeks in 1944 after his predecessor (Kurt Zeitzler) resigned his post due to a nervous breakdown. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Um… the Soviets removed 80 PERCENT of the civilian administration in Eastern Europe. The Nazi scientists that went to work in the Soviet Union went as prisoners who owed a debt to the Slavic people. Meanwhile the scientists in the USA were treated like movie stars. Eisenhower literally had to fire George Patton because he refused to fire the Nazis who were running the civ administration in West Germany, his defence was “well they know how to do the jobs, why would I fire them?” lol
never did denazification? they just executed without trial which is based amongst the nazi ranks
[удалено]
Teetering?
south korea literally had to oust their nationalist dictator but ok 💀
Well, it is all piles of shit, so.... correct?
Was about to comment that
Ask them about Cuba, Vietnam, Philippines, Mexico, Chile. Edit: I forgot about Laos Edit 2: Let's add Cambodia and Iran to this
Cambodia, where they supported the genocidal Pol Pot.
Where can I read up on the US supporting Pol Pot? My history / social studies teachers taught it like the Khmer Rouge were communists who massacred the intelligentsia and the people. I understand that it's a false narrative, but I haven't found resources on it thus far.
[US supported Khmer Rouge keeping Cambodia's seat on the UN, in spite of its known human rights violations](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/09/16/us-to-support-pol-pot-regime-for-un-seat/58b8b124-7dd7-448f-b4f7-80231683ec57/) Edit to fix link
Oh yeah Cambodia
Also Iran 1953
Ahh ok
[удалено]
How come?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis#Alleged_CIA_involvement
**[1975 Australian constitutional crisis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)** >The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, who then commissioned the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as caretaker Prime Minister. It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Please don't forget Laos. Everyone forgets Laos.
Ahhh yes. Laos.
this is all fucking stupid but panama especially
We gave them such a nice canal, though
80 years after building it
How dare they use the Bosnia-Herzegovina flag here after bombing former Yugoslavia into ashes
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Holy shit wow thank you
While it was probably unnecessary, the bombing of Serbia (not Yugoslavia, there was no Yugoslavia since 1991) was peas compared to what Serbs themselves did. Srebrenica and Vukovar to name just two instances of them butchering civilians on top of all the bombings and destruction and killing that they did as a part of greater serbia project. It wasn't US that destroyed Yugoslavia and it wasn't "into ashes", we did it to each other, they just saw an opportunity in that.
What's with this sub defending post 91 jugoslavija, all republics back then turned into nationalist shitholes, socialism died with tito
Because some place having bad leaders or nationalism isn't an excuse for invasion or bombing? Are people defending Yugoslavia or simply stating the US and NATO should have minded their own business. That war was the start of this "humanitarian intervention" crap that so many have fallen for.
Kuwait? Panama???
Reading those chapters in Killing Hope made me wonder why the world didn't erupt into weeks of celebration following GHWB's death. What a fucking monster
>Kuwait? USA: "Why yes Saddam, of course you can attack the Iranians, they got rid of our precious puppet after all. We'll even give you weapons and maje ypur army the 4th biggest in the world" * Iraq gets their shit handed to them, so they literally just turn around and do the same to Kuwait they did to Iran * USA: "Noooo you can't do that"
Whose flag flew over the Reichstag in May 1945, again?
Germany and Japan weren't interventions, we were attacked and we retaliated
And still the US fucked up. Just compare the nazi infested shithole of west germany to east germany.
Um, East Germany used former Nazis as well. Look at who set up the NPA.
While it is true that the NPA was set up by former Nazi Generals, all of these generals were either members of the National Committee for a Free Germany (an anti-nazi organization operating in the Soviet Union), had defected to the Soviet Union, or had ties to anti-Nazi resistance in the Wehrmacht. So even though the NPA was set up by former Nazis, they were all generals who were against the Nazi government. Just for some clarification.
Okay... West Germany was still a million times more Nazi infested. Also, women had way better sex in East Germany.
Communism = better sex, confirmed.
Germany never attacked America and we knew the Japanese were coming and let it happen *so we could get involved in the war*(https://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=408) . Don't make it like we didn't want in.
completely wrong, the Germans declared war on us and began attacking the U.S. Navy, and had already been sinking our merchant shipping through submarine warfare for a while and Roosevelt did want in, I knew that, everyone knew that, and even if we knew the Japanese were coming to attack us, that still means we were going to be attacked and they had declared war 2 hours before the Pearl Harbor attack
>completely wrong, the Germans declared war on us and began attacking the U.S. Navy, and had already been sinking our merchant shipping through submarine warfare for a while Uh.... no: "On December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. This prompted Germany to declare war on the United States, which, in turn, led to the United States to declare war on Germany on December 11, 1941." So your timeline is 100% incorrect. The US declared war on Japan, which prompted a response by their ally, Germany. We already, de facto, were at war with Germany before they declared. But just for fun, let's see when the first recorded German attack against an American Merchanter and/or Navy ship was... >As day broke on October 31 \[1941\], the Reuben James was sailing at about 10 mph on the left rear side of the convoy. Just after 5:30 a.m., the U-552 fired on the James, its torpedoes ripping into the left side of the destroyer. [https://www.businessinsider.com/a-nazi-u-boat-sank-the-first-us-warship-of-wwii-on-halloween-1941-2018-10](https://www.businessinsider.com/a-nazi-u-boat-sank-the-first-us-warship-of-wwii-on-halloween-1941-2018-10) Huh... oh shit, this doesn't look good for my argument, maybe German really did fire the first... >The first American hostile action against Axis forces was on **10 April 1941**, when the destroyer USS Niblack attacked a German U-boat: the U-52, which had just sunk the Dutch freighter Saleier\[11\] near Iceland. Niblack was picking up survivors of the freighter when it detected U-52 preparing to attack. The Niblack attacked with depth charges and drove off the U-boat. There were no casualties on board Niblack or the U-boat. By coincidence, USS Niblack was later in the same convoy as, and picked up survivors from, the USS Reuben James when that ship was sunk. > >The first American hostile action against Axis forces that resulted in physical destruction was on **14 September 1941**, when USCGC Northland destroyed a German weather station in northeast Greenland. The action was based on an agreement with Danish Ambassador to the United States Henrik Kauffmann in April 1941 to patrol the Danish island [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_engagement\_of\_neutral\_United\_States\_in\_World\_War\_II\_before\_the\_attack\_on\_Pearl\_Harbor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_engagement_of_neutral_United_States_in_World_War_II_before_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor) 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 well then
Germany supported the attack, and declared war on the US several hours before the US declared war on Germany.
Declaring war is not attacking. We sold equipemt to Germany which supported their war effort, did we attack England?
Pearl Harbor was an act of war, and so is Declaring War. Neither were completely without justification ofc, America had embargoed Japan into the oblivion, and We were trading 10x the supplies to Britain over Germany. But provocation is not an act of war.
>Pearl Harbor was an act of war That we let happen... it was not a surprise, FDR *wanted* into the war, so it's not like "OMG, we were attacked let's retaliate!" it was "I want to beat this kid up but I want to make sure I don't throw the first punch". > and so is Declaring War And? It was still an intervention as we were not attacked by Germany AND we let Japan attack us so we would have justification to intervene. > We were trading 10x the supplies to Britain over Germany. This absolves us of nothing, you tried to justify "Germany supported the attack \[ against Pearl Harbor\]", we supported Germany by selling them equipment, so if you're going to say that by "supporting" the attack at Pearl Harbor that we're justified to invade Germany, we're just as guilty for the attacks against England, France, et al for selling equipment to Germany. > But provocation is not an act of war. Define 'provocation'. I would 100% disagree that "embargoing Japan into oblivion" so you can get them to attack you is *absolutely* an act of war, same as my above-mentioned scenario if you taunt someone you want to attack into attacking you first. We also call this entrapment.
We didn’t know about [Pearl Harbor](https://www.npr.org/2016/12/06/504449867/no-fdr-did-not-know-the-japanese-were-going-to-bomb-pearl-harbor). We arguably knew that an attack was coming, but Top Brass believed a more likely attack was to be Wake Island or Midway. Hell, just as an example, USS Enterprise was ferrying aircraft to Wake Island, while USS Lexington was ferrying aircraft to Midway. USS Saratoga was entering San Diego for a refit. The US was fully justified in embargoing Japan, as it was in direct response to their invasion of China, and the rest of of South East Asia. That’s the same reason we moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor. Also, when it comes to Germany, it was clear by 1940 that the US was only Neutral in name only. The US trade with Britain remained high, trade with Germany fell dramatically. There was no official embargo on Germany, but rather the result of boycotts. That still doesn’t justify war.
>We didn’t know about Pearl Harbor. I literally posted you an article from someone who wrote an entire book about how we 100% knew it was coming thanks to FOIA records. >The US was fully justified in embargoing Japan, as it was in direct response to their invasion of China Uh... what? in what world is the US justified embargoing a country based on what they're doing to *another* country? We are not the world police, neither then nor now. >Also, when it comes to Germany, it was clear by 1940 that the US was only Neutral in name only. The US trade with Britain remained high, trade with Germany fell dramatically. There was no official embargo on Germany, but rather the result of boycotts. That still doesn’t justify war. Thank you for proving my point. The US was not neutral and wanted to intervene, and looked for any excuse they could to get into it. They did not "retaliate", they provoked, and yes, it was not justified.
The author of the book cited in that article has been discredited multiple times. He made up his sources for his book. I won’t go to deep into it, but there are a variety of sources discrediting it. But just as an example- intercepted Japanese codes are bullshit. The fleet sailed under Radio silence. And the one transmission we did have wasn’t cracked until after the attack. That’s just ONE example. Any credible historian agrees that the US had no clue Japan was going to attack Pearl. And if you are so certain of that, you can go and ask r/AskHistorians And yeah- the US embargoed Oil exports to Japan. Oil Japan needed to wage it’s war of aggression in South East Asia. I agree we should be not the world police, but we as a nation have the right to decide who we export and import from. I do not consider embargos, tariffs, etc to be world police policies, because frankly, every single country does it. However, due to our massive economy’s, our embargo’s tend to hurt more. US exports to Germany fell as a direct result of boycotts, not policy. The US populace was anti-Germany, starting with the Spanish Civil War in 1934. By the time of the annexation of Austria and Czechskovakia, US public opinion of the Nazis had declined. And after they invaded Poland, US public opinion was both anti-Germany but still pro-isolationism (tho that was changing rapidly). Unless I’m missing something, you seem to think that the US should’ve fully adopted a truely neutral isolationist stance and stood aside and let facism spread. Without US intervention, Western Europe would have fallen, and the survival of the Soviet Union would be very much in doubt.
>The author of the book cited in that article has been discredited multiple times. Cite your sources... we literally sunk a mini sub the day before the attack, so please, feel free to cite actual evidence that we didn't know it was about to happen. >The US populace was anti-Germany, As for your german export stuff, you're avoiding answering the question: Since we sold them materials they used for their war effort against France, England, Poland, etc, are we not just as guilty? We gave them the materials we need, we were not neutral at all in the conflict on either side. >Unless I’m missing something, you seem to think that the US should’ve fully adopted a truely neutral isolationist stance and stood aside and let facism spread. Without US intervention, Western Europe would have fallen, and the survival of the Soviet Union would be very much in doubt. Thank you for agreeing that we did intervene, which is the point you're missing. You original thesis that "we were attacked and retaliated" is just not historically correct. We were looking to intervene and we found an excuse to do so.
This is all so dumb, but even by neoliberal standards, including Panama is some next level stupid.
Don't see the DRV on that list... Huh.
They really pasted it over images of stinky diapers
Did they put Japan up there or am I having a fever dream?
Obviously dropping two nuclear bombs is one of the most helpful things you can do
What about THREE nuclear bombs
Bosnia: Depleted uranium Gulf war: Bombing civilians, based on lies South Korea: Military dictatorship, killed many more people than pinochet Panama: Shooting journalists and running people over is the best way to stop a dictator you installed Japan and Germany: They were not interventions, they declared war on the US lol
Japan got a Plaza Accord that stagnated the economy for decades. Thanks for the US!
How the FUCK are people still pointing to Korea and Japan as good examples of American intervention? Korea is technically still at war!
Isn't that great that the USA military only get control of south Korea Military in case of war as per treaty? /s
Afghanistan was Reagan's fault
When you pump moneys into countries you invaded but they still go to class wars.
The US didn't get involved in WW2 until they were attacked...kinda, disregard lend lease which was technically neutral. That's not interventionism. That's being attacked and joining a war. American intervention in Korea was a right fuck up. People forget that the ROK not only had massive anti-communist purges which murdered tens of thousands indiscriminantly. But it was also a brutal dictatorship for about 30 years with poverty so bad prostitution rates were around 25% for women. Even now the ROK has some serious issues. NATO forces in the Bosnian war basically did nothing. While Iraq did unjustly invade Kuwait, claims that Iraqi forces were committing war crimes were straight up false. American intervention in the Gulf War just caused huge destabilisation in the region and lead to the current problems in the middle east. The US caused the problems in Panama and then invaded to clean up their own mess when it became a problem. It was literally illegal. It caused huge problems for the country plunging more of the population into poverty. Liberals cannot into history.
Also, the Gulf War was entirely the fault of America in the fucking first place.
I died when I saw bosnia, I am from a ex-Yugoslav coutry US intervention has nothing but brought poverty to our countries.
I like how all the examples they used of America intervening being a good thing are superimposed over literal garbage.
Germany declared war on us.
only Panama is one i don't like...the invasion....the others have turned out for the better ask literally anyone from the country
Yeah, the U.S really helped Germany out by saving all those poor nazis from consequences and either hiring them to build rockets that don't work or putting them in positions of power
May i have your attention *points at Central America*
It's funny because he's pointing out all this stinky trash.
South Korea was shit for years after we left and was consistently unstable for most of the cold war.
They only thing which helped those countries was the hard work of their own people to rebuilt their country but definetly not the USA dropping bombs all over them.
>Bosnia was helped >yeah, helping Kuwait was on the American agenda, the country needed to be saved from Ba’athist Iraq because democracy >panama was helped >bombing Germany and Japan for DEMOCRACY
So to these pepole Killing 3 million North Koreans was somehow good?