Or, you can see it from another angle and say that they are both there trying to defend themselves from the enemy.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Oh Sh*t, Here We Go (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
I agree that it was mutually beneficial, but there was no noble aspect to it. That's national narrative taking over in the history books. Just as there was nothing noble about the Soviets, even though they got hit much harder.
The eastern front was collapsing as the US entered World War 2. Personally I believe that it was just as much an act of helping the allies as it was ensuring that communism didn't take over the US interest zone called Europe.
The eastern front was collapsing as the US entered World War 2. Personally I believe that it was just as much an act of helping the allies as it was ensuring that communism didn't take over the US interest zone called Europe.
The initial act is noble, but are you demanding 200 back or is the person willing to give you an extra 100 for helping him in such desperate measures?
---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 20:06 ----------
So a 4 month old baby is the enemy?
---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 20:08 ----------
We could have just crush Japan on our own without going to Europe and lived happily ever after. We choose to no longer turn a deaf ear when help was needed. The immediate impact for us was boosting the economy at the time, after a depression. If that's what you mean as mutually beneficial then perhaps...
---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 20:06 ----------
So a 4 month old baby is the enemy?
---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 20:08 ----------
We could have just crush Japan on our own without going to Europe and lived happily ever after. We choose to no longer turn a deaf ear when help was needed. The immediate impact for us was boosting the economy at the time, after a depression. If that's what you mean as mutually beneficial then perhaps...
I think there's a disconnect here. If you want to consider some guy who lives in Iowa listening to the radio and going "zomg those poor Englishmen over there, I have to do something" and decides to come over and help the resistance, yeah I might grant your argument. Because he's personally in danger.
But a government is not as such in physical danger and a government never goes to war without thinking long and hard about what it is they stand to gain from it. So was it noble of Eisenhower to send soldiers? No, I don't see how. And apart from that it's not like they decided to enter the war, they were attacked by Japan who was allied with Germany. So it wasn't the US volunteering, was it?
EDIT: Roosevelt lol, not Eisenhower.
But a government is not as such in physical danger and a government never goes to war without thinking long and hard about what it is they stand to gain from it. So was it noble of Eisenhower to send soldiers? No, I don't see how. And apart from that it's not like they decided to enter the war, they were attacked by Japan who was allied with Germany. So it wasn't the US volunteering, was it?
EDIT: Roosevelt lol, not Eisenhower.
Like I said, we could have choose to defeat Japan and only Japan then leave it at that. Possibly wait for Germany to try anything funny, if they choose to then we go back to defending ourselves. I think once we were hit by Japan we realized that were was something a little bit worse than Empirical Japan, so we entered the war as a nation. Then you had thousands and thousands enter to join the cause afterwards knowing full well who genocide was happening.
Missing the point. A suicide bomber walks into the center of a train station with innocent civilians waiting to go to work and take their children to daycare, not one is carrying a weapon because in London who needs one?
That is different than collateral damage, bad intel, etc. Our military makes plenty of mistakes but killing an innocent civilian(s) isn't intentional. The bomber, however, is out to get as many as he can regardless if hostile or not...he doesn't care.
That is different than collateral damage, bad intel, etc. Our military makes plenty of mistakes but killing an innocent civilian(s) isn't intentional. The bomber, however, is out to get as many as he can regardless if hostile or not...he doesn't care.
How would you live happily ever after if the entirety of Europe because a part of the USSR? There are differing opinions here and it's definitely not a theme for a brief discussion, it's more a PHD work sort of topic 
. As it stands now, I'm convinced that Europe would've been a part of the USSR had it not been for US interference. I would rather say that the US saved Europe from communism than from fascism. In addition to saving Western Europe from Communism, the States got a powerfull vessel for economic prosperity. It's no coincidence that all European cultures have taken a swing towards Americanization.
. As it stands now, I'm convinced that Europe would've been a part of the USSR had it not been for US interference. I would rather say that the US saved Europe from communism than from fascism. In addition to saving Western Europe from Communism, the States got a powerfull vessel for economic prosperity. It's no coincidence that all European cultures have taken a swing towards Americanization.Agree to an extent. Regardless, the Manhatten Project could have still occurred without entering WWII, could it have not?
Example: Japan attacks, we enter into war with only Japan..defeat them and knowing that Germany could be a potential thread we begin developing atomic weapons on our own accord.
---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 20:17 ----------
This is getting hard to keep up with all of you.
I can see how, creating an economic vessel to improve the economy is mutually beneficial, that's why I said it could be an argument.
But, I still think the US entering the war to help EUROPE was noble. That's just how I see it I guess.
Example: Japan attacks, we enter into war with only Japan..defeat them and knowing that Germany could be a potential thread we begin developing atomic weapons on our own accord.
---------- Post added 08.09.2012 at 20:17 ----------
How would you live happily ever after if the entirety of Europe because a part of the USSR? There are differing opinions here and it's definitely not a theme for a brief discussion, it's more a PHD work sort of topic . As it stands now, I'm convinced that Europe would've been a part of the USSR had it not been for US interference. I would rather say that the US saved Europe from communism than from fascism. In addition to saving Western Europe from Communism, the States got a powerfull vessel for economic prosperity. It's no coincidence that all European cultures have taken a swing towards Americanization.
. As it stands now, I'm convinced that Europe would've been a part of the USSR had it not been for US interference. I would rather say that the US saved Europe from communism than from fascism. In addition to saving Western Europe from Communism, the States got a powerfull vessel for economic prosperity. It's no coincidence that all European cultures have taken a swing towards Americanization.
I can see how, creating an economic vessel to improve the economy is mutually beneficial, that's why I said it could be an argument.
But, I still think the US entering the war to help EUROPE was noble. That's just how I see it I guess.
This post is a grave mistake of underestimating what a European Third Reich could've accomplished. They wouldn't have been something the US could just do something about when the time came. You remember all those scientists that got smuggled out of Europe? Yeah, they would most likely have stayed. Hitler broke a peace pact with USSR FFS ( who does that? seriously? 
) he wouldn't have hesitated to drop da bomb.
---------- Post added 09.09.2012 at 02:19 ----------
It's noble in retrospect, I can assure you that nothing but cost/benefit was considered before entering Europe. That's just how it works.
) he wouldn't have hesitated to drop da bomb.---------- Post added 09.09.2012 at 02:19 ----------
This is getting hard to keep up with all of you.
I can see how, creating an economic vessel to improve the economy is mutually beneficial, that's why I said it could be an argument.
But, I still think the US entering the war to help EUROPE was noble. That's just how I see it I guess.
I can see how, creating an economic vessel to improve the economy is mutually beneficial, that's why I said it could be an argument.
But, I still think the US entering the war to help EUROPE was noble. That's just how I see it I guess.
And you think the soldier cares if he kills innocent people and ends up calling it collateral damage? Why should so many innocent people die because they have a beef with Saddam? Why should so many people from the World Trade Center have to die because extremist are in a beef with American politics? Only difference here is that the army has a license to kill while suicide bombers don't.
Don't try to defend it by saying it wasn't intentional because if it wasn't intend to kill people then they should have made it easy on themselves and stayed at home. No countries gets bombed. There.
Look, I'm not here to justify suicide bombers. All I was trying to say is that what Kate wrote could be applied to suicide bombers too.
Don't try to defend it by saying it wasn't intentional because if it wasn't intend to kill people then they should have made it easy on themselves and stayed at home. No countries gets bombed. There.
Look, I'm not here to justify suicide bombers. All I was trying to say is that what Kate wrote could be applied to suicide bombers too.
