Use this one weird trick to have correct opinions on the USA
Use this one weird trick to have correct opinions on the USA
Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.
You're viewing a single thread.
Name me a time when the US was intentionally and objectively good and don't include times it was repairing damage it did. I'll wait. Forever.
Hey, they entered WWII after they helped inspire, arm, and otherwise equip the Naz- wait.
Hey, they fought a Civil...War...against themselves...over slavery...
Hey, they...uh...killed a bunch of British soldiers in the 18th century?
I got nothing.
ed: LMAO I didn't even see the lib below me actually post fucking WWII and Ukraine
Slava Ukraini bois I got Stephen Bandera tattooed on my nutsack isn't he so cool
Fuck off
Sending lend lease weapons to soviets.
Emphasis on lend. The US made them pay it back and even after they destroyed the USSR, they still expected Russia to pick up the tab (and they did, they settled the debt in 2006)
Did not know that. Can amerikkka do one thing unambiguously good?
Nah US bougies were absolutely investing in the nazi war machine before that
the only thing I can think of is the Barbary Wars
Piracy that injures the United States government is objectively a good thing, sorry
Gonna need to start making one piece emotes about pirates being anarchists and hating the corrupt government. Which is an important distinction compared to most organized crime that normally works with the government
Fighting WWII and currently supplying lots of stuff to Ukraine.
Ah yes how could I forget a war that the US only joined years late and well after millions of people had already died. A war where the US setup their own concentration camps for Japanese Americans. A war where the US used nuclear bombs to obliterate civilians in an unprecedented way. SURELY that war the US was definitely the good guys there.
And then Ukraine, a war where the US is giving unlimited guns to literal Nazis and shoving civilians into an endless and completely unnecessary meat grinder. Yeah definitely the objective good guys in that conflict. Also the US was largely at fault for the conflict in the first place so even if they were objectively the good guys here it would be them cleaning up their mess. They aren't though they're making it worse.
There are a few literal Nazis on both sides. Ukraine doesn't have any in the government or high command apparatus.
Why is the meat grinder unnecessary? Should Ukraine just give up it's sovereignty and become part of Russia? If not, the war remains necessary.
Permanently Deleted
GOOD post
Do you think Wagner is not Nazi, or is not Russian?
Permanently Deleted
I haven't gotten to that part yet, I'm taking to like a dozen of you crazies.
it takes a dozen of us to wrangle the sheer amount of idiotic brainworms you have
Cool cool cool. Anyway, you were saying there are only Nazis in Ukraine command and not Russia's?
If you really can't keep track of conversations in your head at least look at the context of each comment you reply to so you don't look like a stupid wall people are talking to
Great engagement with someone showing you how Nazis are structurally integrated in Ukraine. If you think the same for Russia FUCKING PROVE IT. And don't link me to some lazy-ass YouTube video citing Kiev independent. Show me your analysis
They were being used as cannon fodder with the intent to destroy them, and their leadership was assassinated by Putin. Doesn't exactly seem like Russia is a fan of them
Whatabout. Whatabout? Whataboooouuuuut! ism.
Whataboutism
ad hominem!
I thought it was gone!
Whataboutbyrger! Whataboutism!!ism
The comment was saying that it's bogus that there are Nazis on both sides. I asked if the Wagner Nazis were Russian. It directly relates to the claims.
Ukraine has a national holiday celebrating their nazi leader from WW2. Russia has a holiday celebrating the defeat of the Nazis in WW2.
Ukraine also has may 9th, Victory Day over Nazism in World War II. Are you taking about defender's day? I didn't find any holidays that fit your description.
I'm not the only one getting tired of you speaking as if with authority and needing to be taught fundamental aspects of the topics you're talking about.
Is Wagner a Nazi paramilitary, or a penal legion? One day I hear they are a bunch of ideological soldiers just like Azov, next I hear that it's full of Russian prisoners trying to shorten their sentences.
Also "wHaTaBoUtIsM"
Whataboutism? What about deez nuts?
the USA has been pushing nazi ideology in Ukraine for 70 years
That's not surprising for during the cold war.
TIL that supporting nazis is okay if they hate your opponent
Why are nazis aligned with your interests and why do nazis oppose your rival? Doesn't matter, repeat your mantra, "We are the good guys".
nice handwave. even if that excused pushing and helping nazis (it doesn't) you ignore the last 30 years they were doing it after that. very convenient
Would you say it's bad the US pushed and supported Nazi's around the world to fight communism?
Dude, Valerii Zaluzhnyi literally has 2 busts of Bandera in his office.
Tldr, the commander of the armed forces of Ukraine is a nazi.
Post source of Nazis in leadership ranks in Russian military or government
Prigozhin has Nazi eagle tats off the top of my head.
Permanently Deleted
No, he's the Ukraine asov group that got wiped out, right?
Permanently Deleted
Holy shit I didn’t know that that Utkin piece of shit was on that plane. He was the only guy liberals could come up with when they were saying that Nazis were also in Russia too (although he had not been seen in public since 2016). Once again I must express my critical support for Putin, especially when he’s mercing Nazis. Odd that liberals haven’t praised Putin for doing this, since I thought they hated Nazis?
They wanted prigo to do a coup, they cheered for him and called Wagner freedom fighters during their little farce
Oh okay cool.
He's toast
But he was Russia inner circle. Till he decided to try and coup.
He was a mercenary.
Favored by Putin and given special latitude. You aren't going to start a pmc without serious political capital, plus Putin had been commissioning them for a long time.
Do those words mean anything? Favored? Latitude?
And the strength of these connections is why hiring and then killing off a mercenary makes the Russian government the nature of being nazis in the same way Ukraine having actual nazi politicians in charge does?
Why do you argue so fucking far past the point it's obvious you're wrong? You're an entire branching comment tree in this post. You never give up on a single point but you're getting bodied left and right.
Not anymore after his body fell thousands of feet from the sky lmao
Poll by Rating, a Ukrainian research institute, shows positive opinions of Stepan Bandera (Jew exterminating Nazi) soaring from 22 per cent in 2012 to 74 per cent in April 2022. (post maidan revolution in 2014)
Those opinions are stronger the further you get away from Russia. They are weaker in Crimea and Donbass.
The left wing parties in Ukraine have been banned.
Russia isn't trying to absorb Ukraine. They would absolutely broker a deal to take back Crimea and Donbass and leave the rest. A significant number in those places are ethnically russian (it's the largest ethnicity proportion in the area ~ 39%) and a higher proportion than just ethnic Russians are open to becoming part of Russia (~49%)
some sources:
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2023/01/ukraine-stepan-bandera-nationalist
Don't both sides the issue, the Nazis in Ukraine command its military and hold office. To the point where even pro-Ukraine news can't blur out all the swastikas, wolfsangels, black suns, and Bandera portraits.
And I agree, Ukraine should be sovereign. Which is why it must reject its current government that was installed by the US via coup. The people the Ukraine should be fighting are their compradors, not the Russians.
Permanently Deleted
EDIT: if imgur is crapping out for you, here they are reuploaded to hexbear:
Gonna have to agree that Imgur seems to have borked your images somehow, even on hexbear, I get errors on those links
didn't even upload these, they've been up since 2022. they still work fine for me even on a fresh browser and a shift-reload. might be an imgur problem and we're hitting different servers
check edit
EDIT: also thanks for letting me know
Both of your links seem to be broken.
they work fine, your brain seems to be broken
No, it really isn’t working for me. I can’t see it from Lemmygrad or Hexbear.
It just says “Oops, we couldn’t find that page”
don't know what to tell you, they still work here. must be something spotty going on with imgur
Yeah I can't see them either
check edit, reupped to hexbear
reupped to hexbear for you since imgur appears to be having some sort of coherency problem
Thanks for the images lol.
They have been reuploaded to Hexbear so you can see them now.
W H A T A B O U T I S M
I'm doing it you mean?
I'm pointing out it's nonsensical to site getting rid of Nazis as a justification to invade when you also have the same problem. What about ism brings up unrelated wrongs, this is showing hypocrisy.
I don't see people on here saying Nazis are the reason it started so much. Most people's take is that Russia is lashing out against encirclement by opposing powers, and also to annex parts of Ukraine that according to polls, don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore.
Western funding of Nazis is just a tried and tested mechanism of levering power against a state.
It's not the reason that Russia started their offensive, but it is a fact that the CIA funds right wing militants to fight on the behalf of the USA's economic interests. They have done so time and time again throughout history, from Europe to Asia to Africa.
Now, as Ukraine rules with western support, they have outlawed left wing parties. This has rather predictably ended with higher rates of admiration of the Nazi Stepan Bandera, the repeal of labour laws, and the mass privatization of the country.
This is typical economic shock doctrine. If Ukraine wins, its people will be the new low wage manufacturers and workers for the world to use and discard for profits. If Russia wins, it's also not great at this point - they'd likely be contending with western funded guerillas, and who knows if Russia would actually reinstate the repealed labour laws and left wing parties, given that Russia itself is a capitalist oligarchy.
Yeah, what good things was Ukraine doing? Anything worth all those dead people? Of course not
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.
Was WWII the US's fault? No it wasn't.
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
Permanently Deleted
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 pleaseWhether 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.
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.
Permanently Deleted
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
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.
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?
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.
So that makes them entirely the US's fault?
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 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 😉
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.
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.
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.
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!)
What the fuck does
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
See my other reply
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
lmao they put half the nazis back in power after the war and are now arming nazis in Ukraine
If thats the best you can find, then holy shit
You think West Germany was Nazi? I think they took a lot of the Nazis back for the space program.
you really just fell off the turnip truck huh
West German Government Was Full of Ex-Nazis After World War II
Is falling off the turnip truck morally good?
New site tag line
the new libsoc
First time was tragedy this time as farce
Of course that puppet state was staffed with Nazis, who do you think was the first head of NATO
But was the government Nazi? Since Nazi Germany had conscription, I'd image it'd be hard to find anyone in Germany who wasn't a Nazi. But as I understand it, there was actual systematic denazification that kept the government on track.
But as I understand it,
you have demonstrated over and over again that your understanding is woefully incomplete, almost cartoonishly shallow
Since Nazi Germany had conscription, I’d image it’d be hard to find anyone in Germany who wasn’t a Nazi. But as I understand it, there was actual systematic denazification that kept the government on track.
Seems like you didn't have a good response to this point, would you like to try again?
It's not worth responding to blatant lies, West Germany did not have "actual systematic denazification", their government was staffed with Nazis and they literally had a Nazi general as head of NATO. This is akin to burying your head in the sand and complaining that people aren't helping you see.
There was no "systemic denazification". We killed a few figureheads, then put the rest back into power, and into NATO leadership. West Germany was a Nazi country.
The soviets did a much more thorough job of denazification. How did that work out for the people of east Germany?
Is Germany still a nazi country now? If not, when did it stop being a nazi country?
Are you asking about the political implications of denazification for East Germany?
I'd say that the fact that Nazis were effectively eradicated in East Germany is proof enough that it turned out well for them.
Or are you concern-trolling about the Berlin Wall or the economic underdevelopment of east Germany comparative to West Germany devoid of any historical context or something like that?
The soviets did a much more thorough job of denazification.
Yes.
How did that work out for the people of east Germany?
Good, GDR was a much better place to live for the non-wealthy. Far better education, quality of life, women's rights, transportation, etc.
Are you just a Nazi? What is even your implication here? That nazis in power make things better and removing them is bad?
Seems like you don't have good reading comprehension, would you like to try again?
Huh?
All of germany living any sort of comfortable/wealthy deserved the axe, you could have replaced them with the victims/oppressed you terrible person.
Look up some of these Nazis in the BRD. We're not talking about conscripted soldiers. The people that are brought up check one or (often) multiple of the following boxes:
- Members of the Nazi party and other Nazi organizations, and they weren't forced to join these either.
- Officers or officials in charge of the war crimes, the Holocaust, or some other Nazi crimes.
- People directly on-the-ground involved in war crimes and mass murder.
- Capitalists or managers profiting off the Nazi war effort, using slave labor and/or profiting of stolen Jewish wealth.
There were thousands of people guilty of stuff like this in all levels of the BRD government, including many the highest levels. This was normal. The Western allies could have hanged some top 10,000 of those responsible, easily, but they didn't. They let them out of prison, hired them, and helped them escape justice.
They did the same thing in occupied Korea with Japanese occupiers and collaborators. Put the fascists back in charge who had enslaved their countrymen. They did this everywhere. America merged with fascism it didn't defeat it, it's upgraded to level 2 fascism.
Pretty sure camp survivors weren't. They would have needed new jobs so that would have been pretty a pretty good way to help fix things. Only we didn't want justice. We wanted people who were used to fighting the soviets. So nazies. We wanted them in power, just working for us.
The Gehlen Organisation, which later became absorbed wholesale into the West German state as their intelligence apparatus, was literally just a bunch of Nazis headed by Nazi lieutenant-general Reinhard Gehlen.
Was the government Nazi? Well, that entire arm of the government certainly was!
Klaus Barbie has entered that chat. you know, the guy from the hit movie!
D-Day happened not because of some altruistic desire to liberate France but because the remaining capitalist states saw that Germany was neither salvageable nor willing to work with them, and something need to be done to stop the Soviets from liberating all of continental Europe and building a socialist bloc with abundant year round naval ports in the open Atlantic.
Prior to the war Nazi Germany was chomping at the bit to destroy the Soviet Union, and the Soviets wanted to take a wrecking ball to Germany, both for the sake of destroying the political epicenter of European fascism, and so they could keep pushing the revolution westward and take the entirety of the continent.
The Western alliance with Poland was an attempt at managing this rivalry, so that they could try to force this nearly inevitable conflict to happen on their terms, not Germany nor Russia’s. The West must have seen that if Germany won this fight and had their pick of whatever they wanted in Eastern Europe, France would end up with a monstrous neighbor that occupied the entire rest of the European mainland, and although Communism would have been uprooted from Russia, Germany could easily use its newly acquired land/resources/industrial capacity to double back and take on France. The goal of destroying the Soviets is achieved, but the Fascist bloc becomes the dominant faction of the imperial core and the anglo-Liberal forces are forced to either submit or try to hold out as just the UK and US against the rest of the world.
Now, if Russia were to win this impending Russo-German war, there was no way in hell Stalin slows his roll after beating Germany and stops at the French border— France and possibly Franco’s Spain would be next, and where does this leave the West? Unlike a German victory, the anglo-Liberal faction of the imperial core is all that’s left and they are stuck with the entire European mainland controlled by communists, an outcome they’ll do anything to avoid. With the shipyard of Germany and France and access to the open Atlantic, they can threaten anglo naval superiority and even plan an invasion of the British isles— and unlike Hitler, who represents just another faction of capitalism, Stalin and the communists are far less likely to give the remaining Western countries the option to accept subservience if they lay down their arms.
So the West find themselves in a position where if they do nothing in this coming Russo-German war, they are screwed either way, and although a Nazi victory is preferable, they figure that through geopolitical fuckery they can get involved and alter the tides. If they side with the communists, which god knows the Western governments broadly speaking do not want to do, they can at least manage the fall of Germany, and hopefully negotiate a post-war European order where the Soviets do not have access to the open Atlantic (i.e., ports that aren’t in an inland sea or the hard to navigate Arctic). D-Day was of course an attempt at taking back territory in France but more importantly it was the first step toward securing a foothold in Germany and making sure that there was a mobilised, battle-hardened force waiting to meet the Soviets so that a hard limit could be put on their Western advance. I don’t mean to say that no one wanted France back under a French government, or that there weren’t people in the anglo military commands and governments who were genuinely disgusted by the Nazis and the crimes committed continent-wide during their occupations, but to the cold, realistic, realpolitiking minds of the people at the top like Eisenhower, the primary goal was setting up the board for the next fight— the Anglosphere versus the Soviet Union.
US General George Patton was adamant that if he was allowed to, he could have taken American troops to Prague and secured Czechia for the West in the post-war order well in advance of the Red Army’s arrival. He was promptly informed by Eisenhower that he would doing no such thing. The post-war order had already been negotiated behind the scenes, and through strategically supporting their mortal enemies against a foe that really wasn’t much different than themselves politically or economically, the intact West had made sure that they also held at least part of Central Europe, instead of either Germany or the Soviet Union controlling the entire continent. So D-Day wasn't purely an anti-communist action, but was also crucial to the Western grand strategy of making sure the Soviets didn’t just keep steaming onward, and setting the stage for the Cold War in terms more favorable to the West.
based on comments by @FLAMING_AUBURN_LOCKS@hexbear.net
While there are aspects of that narrative I agree with, I think there's some pretty questionable claims as well.
Now, if Russia were to win this impending Russo-German war, there was no way in hell Stalin slows his roll after beating Germany and stops at the French border
What?? Even with support from the rest of the Allies, WWII was devastating for the Soviets, it required an extraordinary loss of life and resources to defeat the fascists. I'm not inclined to believe that Stalin would simply attack France out of nowhere in this timeline, and I certainly don't agree that "there was no way in hell" they wouldn't. What's your reasoning or evidence for this idea?
So the West find themselves in a position where if they do nothing in this coming Russo-German war, they are screwed either way, and although a Nazi victory is preferable, they figure that through geopolitical fuckery they can get involved and alter the tides.
It's quite a big brained move to try to alter the tides by siding with the larger threat lol.
I don't think there's reason or evidence to suggest that the West found German dominanation all that preferable to Soviet domination. Losing is losing, and while the fascists would preserve and extend the systems of capitalist exploitation, it likely wouldn't be the same exploiters at the top. Germany posed a very real threat of dethroning and replacing the exploiters, which to the exploiters is just as bad as the system of exploitation being dismantled.
This narrative also neglects the Soviet perspectives of the time. The Soviets were more than happy to accept help from the Allies and if anything were critical of them not taking more territory faster. It was only once victory was a forgone conclusion that the rush to sieze land really kicked off. It's also worth noting that the UK and France got involved before any fighting between Germany and the USSR broke out.
So D-Day wasn't purely an anti-communist action
Wasn't purely anti-communist?! It's pretty absurd to imply that it was primarily anti-communist, the Soviets wanted D-Day to happen.
I find this whole narrative is very oversimplified, speculative, and not aligned with the actual history.
loaded with bad faith misinterpretation and handwaving, not going to bother with this
Permanently Deleted
Actually the overwhelming majority of French resistance saw the Red Army as liberators in 1945.
That's a totally different scenario to what's being discussed. We're not talking about the USSR moving into France in the historical timeline. We're talking about a timeline where France and the UK sit back and let Germany duke it out with the USSR, and then, after a long, bloody war, the USSR emerges victorious, and then decides to invade France for some reason. In this scenario, there is no French resistance because there is no Nazi occupation of France.
France was still France. How Long before the ussr answered the calls for aid from the French comunists?
The USSR never invaded West Germany post-WWII, so with the benefit of hindsight, probably never.
However, if France and the UK were so concerned about that, then instead of going to war with the USSR's #1 enemy, they could have sat back and built up their strength while letting the two fight. Then, once in this timeline the USSR finally defeats the Nazis singlehandedly, they could attack the USSR themselves, since it would've been considerably weakened while they were at full strength.
The reality of British and French motivations were more complex than a singular focus on defeating the USSR through the 5th dimensional chess move of forming an alliance with them. What they wanted was stability. They wanted to maintain their "rules based international order" (with themselves on top). The idea was to keep Germany on a leash as a guard dog against the Soviets, and they cut him an incredible amount of slack, just straight up handing him Czechoslovakia in spite of being in a formal alliance with them. But Hitler figured he could just get away with whatever and it turned out that there was, in fact, a line.
In this scenario there is no west Germany because the ussr extends out fast past the border the americnas wouldn't have been there to create. The USSR would have been the only industrial power left in Europe which as a region would have been even further destroyed. So just pushing into the territory of the old empire to fix everything would have looked like a pretty good idea especially since it wouldn't be risking a nuke from the US to do so.
In this scenario there is no west Germany because the ussr extends out fast past the border the americnas wouldn't have been there to create.
I know, I'm saying that historically, the USSR did not expand westward into West Germany so it's unlikely to think that they would expand westerward into France in the hypothetical. Certainly not inevitable.
The USSR would have been the only industrial power left in Europe which as a region would have been even further destroyed.
Are you considering France and the UK to not be industrial powers? The areas that would be destroyed in this scenario are limited to territories occupied by the USSR, since we're talking about the UK and France staying out of the conflict.
So just pushing into the territory of the old empire to fix everything would have looked like a pretty good idea especially since it wouldn't be risking a nuke from the US to do so.
Not sure why you're assuming the US doesn't get nukes here. Am I to believe that Germany would fall more quickly if it was just focused on fighting the Soviets?
Honestly this whole premise is completely ridiculous. It's not like Germany was easy pickings for snatching up territory at the start of the war. What you're doing is looking at the very end of the war, when Germany was defeated and everyone was rushing to seize more territory, and trying to extrapolate those conditions back to the start where they don't apply. Going to war with Germany just to make sure the Soviets don't get the territory means a prolonged war with a very real threat of losing for literally no reason when they could've just stayed out of it and mopped up the pieces later if that was their only goal. It's nonsense.
But even if it was self serving as well, was it good they joined the war?
We could be living in a reality where continental Europe was all part of the USSR, so no.
They entered WWII in the European theatre long after the heavy fighting was already done, same in the Pacific outside of their little island-hopping campaign. They waited that long so they could be war profiteers beforehand. They had a doctrine of targeting civilian population centres, culminating in the needless nuking of two Japanese cities, despite the Japanese being willing to surrender already.
During the war American companies were still producing war material for Germany, and these companies were compensated by the US government whenever they got bombed by the allies.
After the war the US absconded with several high-rsnking Nazis and integrated them into their own government. Others were pardoned after a few years. Same was done with war-crime unit 731 in Japan. After the war the US also initiated operation gladio, which created several fsr-right stay-behind terror organizations, with the purpose of suppressing left-wing movements in Europe.
The US sucks.CW: sa
Even according to the NATO-rag that is Wikipedia, the us soldiers were responsible for 14.000 rapes in France alone. They were known to be pillagers.
Dumping shitloads of weapons into a proxy war does not make you the good guys.
It does if the other side is undoubtedly the bad guys.
You seem to be viewing this like its sports, I don't fucking care about who you think are "undoubtably" bad guys, as far as I'm concerned America is worse. It's getting people killed, for lines on a map, and you guys brought this on.
Why is it the US's fault that Russia decided that Ukraine should be theirs? Does Russia have a moral obligation to not be relegated to a regional power?
like seriously wtf are you attributing moral obligations to a country of millions of people.You know that Ukrainian cities have been getting shelled for like 8 years now, it's just that now it's not only the Ukranian government doing it.
We are taking about good and bad, and whether it was bad or good that Russia invaded. Those are moral questions. So yes, we can ask whether the actions of a nation are moral.
No we are not. You are talking about good and bad because that's the level you engage with politics.
I say it's asenine to attribute moral character to the citizens of a nation of millions unless you're really prepared to have your glass house targetted.
Are Americans guilty of its crimes? Should people consider Americans immoral because of all the genocides, slavery, and ongoing mass incarcerations?
Are Americans guilty of its crimes? Should people consider Americans immoral because of all the genocides, slavery, and ongoing mass incarcerations?
Are you incapable of comparing things? Yes the US has problems. I and others are working to fix them. That doesn't mean morality is worseless.
we can ask whether the actions of a nation are moral.
Well, if we have to speak this way, Russia’s position is the more defensible position. I sympathize for the people of Ukraine and want the war over.
The best thing the Ukrainian government could do is make peace and let the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics join Russia, since that’s what its citizens want.
If you think that’s unacceptable, then the US should return Texas to Mexico before it has a right to speak on this.
History started in 2022
brb relaunching the contras
Define please? What do you mean?
referencing one of many far right terrorist organizations propped up entirely by the USA
Could you link something? I've never heard of them.
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/special/9712/appa.htm US gov investigation excerpts
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html in depth university papers
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00806R000201090033-3.pdf leaked CIA docs
https://www.britannica.com/topic/contra-Nicaraguan-counterrevolutionary lazy brittanica article but read it
Coca cola death squads? Operation Gladio? Operation Paperclip? Pinochet? All exist only with US subversion
Thanks btw
fuck, you are so politically illiterate. spend more time reading and less time opening your mouth
Uh oh stinky
?
?
What does your comment mean? Are you just calling me an ape, or are you referencing some other argument/meme?
I'm saying you're shitting the bed if you think USA joining wwii or perpetuating their current proxy war was done for altruistic reasons
I'm saying it's good. I'm not saying it's done for entirely altruistic reasons. Those are separate things.
and I'm saying you're shitting the bed playing defence for the great satan
They said
Name me a time when the US was intentionally and objectively good and don't include times it was repairing damage it did. I'll wait. Forever.
You said
Fighting WWII and currently supplying lots of stuff to Ukraine.
y'know what I take it back, i'm calling you an ape
I'm saying the US has done horrible things. But saying it's literally the worst thing possible and never can will or has done anything approaching beneficial pushes you right into embracing even worse authoritarian and cruel governments.
Permanently Deleted
See my other Ukraine comment
But was it bad they joined? Even if it was self interested, it's still a good thing.
Permanently Deleted
That makes the definition very broad indeed. In that case I'd have a hard time seeing any country satisfy it. Since everything impacts everything else in some way, and since an entire nation never have completely spotless intentions, no country ever would fit these criteria as you've expanded them.
Permanently Deleted
Having a government in power that you backed is beneficial to you, therefore it isn't altruistic. So it isn't fully objectively good as someone above objected.
Now you're changing the definition of good to exclude anything that benefits you. Hugging your mother isn't objectively good. And for no other reason than in this narrow context in an argument it helps you save face.
My mom is a nice lady, and I love and respect her, so hugging her is good.
No, someone above was arguing that the US joining WWII wasn't good because it wasn't altruistic. I was applying the same logic.
Edit: see here
The US was blatantly looking after its own interests rather than a genuine commitment to destroying Nazism
At what point do you cool off? You've been shown to be shamefully ignorant on pretty much every topic you've engaged with in this thread. When do you stop acting like you're right about literally fucking everything and just give up on some arguments? Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this? When if ever do you just chill the fuck out and start acting like you have things to learn about the world?
And no. The person you're referring to did not say that the US joining WW2 wasn't objectively good because it lacked altruism. They said it was because their intentions were entirely selfish. There's a distinction.
Oh good, we're helping murder more people! YAaaaaaaay
Ww2 would have gone better without us in it.
China probably wouldn't agree. The shit Japan was doing over there was even more inhumane than what the Nazis were doing in Europe.
I dunno. I am not sure we made huge differences in that score. However I know our being in the area to meddle after that is probably not worth the assistance
didn't soviets take out manchuria and korea in like a month
:amerikkka: supplying weapons to :ukkkraine: is actually a pretty big L
Love to supply “lots of stuff” like cluster munitions and depleted uranium to Nazis
That's a bit disingenuine. If your only stance is "USA bad" you would side with the Axis in WWII, the motivation for the USA joining the Allies is irrelevant in that outcome. Sadly you have to actually think about geopolitics sometimes because they're really fucking complicated. You'll find that almost all nations are straight up bad and that the big distinguishing factor about the USA is not how bad it is, but about how much bad it's able to project globally as a hegemon.
It's telling your that your last example of "USA Good" was 80 years ago.
USSR vs Germany was the main show of WW2. US dragged it's fear and only opened a second front when it was apparent that the Soviet Union had won the war.
So maybe USA bad, communism good gets you to 100%?
Pretty sure being against the US would be pro-soviet as the real conflict there was calling dibs on central Europe by the time the US joined the war.
Not really. Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union before Pearl Harbor. The Soviet Union also had skirmishes with Fascist Japan and IJA warcrimes like the Rape of Nanjing already happened. It was pretty obvious which side was good. If anything, it shows the absolute moral bankruptcy of the US that chose to sit on the sidelines while their imperialist rivals killed and bombed each other, hoping to recreate WWI where the US became the first among equals because it was virtually unscathed by WWI. The real anti-US side would be to pick the nonfascist side during the 1930s when the fascists were invading Republican Spain and the Republic of China and not be "isolationist."
