You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] White_Raven 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You call what the United States did "interference"? That's one sloppy fuckin use of the word. Interference is what we did in Vietnam. Self Defense and assurance it won't come back again is what we did in WW2. You're not "interfering" when your allies have been angrily begging for help, and you finally decide to quit sitting on your laurels once the enemy your allies have been fighting sneaks over and sucked punches you in the nuts. The US didn't interfere in WW2, the US rendered assistance to their allies, and paid the Japanese back for their attack.

I think you're one of those people who actually think Hitler did nothing wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong.


[–] whynotanon1 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hitler did a lot wrong, but that isn't the point. To understand history you absolutely have to understand the time period it took place. When you look at the events leading up to early WW2 and even the first months of the war it's becomes blindingly obvious why Hitler was so popular. On to the point, there are some great stats available from MIT about US public opinion during the time period we are talking about.

The questions "Should we tend strictly to our own business and go to war only to defend our own country from attack" was 88% affirmative answers. The US public was very much a non-interventionist country at the time with regard to Europe. Chruchill and FDR conspired to bring the US into the war. The warning signs for an attack on Pearl Harbor were everywhere.

You're not "interfering" when your allies have been angrily begging for help

Not true. Like I said before the alliance system is what caused WWI to explode in scale. The alliance system is what pulled the US into Vietnam initially, to defend the French colony. Both are interferences, both are caused by alliances.


[–] White_Raven 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That... Actually makes sense...