3 ms·

> The only time war makes countries money is when they pick on non-industrialized enemies. Maybe you're making a different point to this but the United States

> The only time war makes countries money is when they pick on non-industrialized enemies. Maybe you're making a different point to this but the United States and its corporations came out of WWI and WWII (wars against an industrialized enemy) far richer and more powerful than before WWI and WWII, largely at the expense of Britain/the British Empire. The USA essentially replacing Britain as the world's economic superpower after WWI and military/imperialist superpower after WWII. > But... Can we really say that we can turn a blind eye to the world's most evil people? Perhaps we can say "Let Europe handle itself" in 1915, but can we really say that in 1941? Even if 1941 was caused by 1915, can't we admit that there are some things worth fighting over? WWI started in 1914, not 1915 and WWII started in 1939 (or 1937, if you want to take it from the Japanese invasion of China), not 1941. 1941 (Pearl Harbor) was not caused by 1915 (WWI), it was caused by 1893 and the invasion, overthrow and annexation of Hawaii that led the military of the US empire to be there in the first place. "Let Europe handle itself" is a simplification of what the United States was thinking and doing before being forced kicking and screaming into finally doing the right thing by Japan and Germany - even after Pearl Harbor, the USA still did not declare war on Hitler. I doubt it's taught in American schools, but it's no secret that American companies (ie, capitalists) were supporting, supplying and working with the Nazis even after the start of WWII. People in US do seem to be taught that lots of charity was doled out to Britain. In fact Britain (and its Empire countries), standing alone against the biggest threat to democracy in history, was forced to hand over its gold reserves, its advanced high technology, and even territory to the US, in return for American help. Not loans at this point in time, of course, because the US believed Britain would fall to Hitler (just as the US had sat back and watched other democracies fall) and therefore would not be in any position to pay the US back. You're right that some things are worth fighting over, and you're right that WWII is an example of a justified war. It's just a pity that the United States, for all the effort it put in when it finally joined (when Germany's defeat was already a foregone conclusion due to Barbarossa), acted before, during and after WWII with complete self-interest.

dctoedt 11y ago
> * when [the U.S.] finally joined (when Germany's defeat was already a foregone conclusion due to Barbarossa)* Germany's defeat was hardly a foregone conclusion in December 1941. Sure, in hindsight it now appears that way. But all the history books indicate that things looked mighty different at the time.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> 1941 (Pearl Harbor) was not caused by 1915 (WWI), it was caused by 1893 and the invasion, overthrow and annexation of Hawaii that led the military of the US empire to be there in the first place. Caused? No. It wouldn't have happened if the US didn't own Hawaii in 1941, but the US takeover of Hawaii was not the causus belli for Pearl Harbor.
- hartpuff 11y ago
  > It wouldn't have happened if the US didn't own Hawaii in 1941 Which is what I said, except I put it more honestly: it would not have happened had the US not invaded, overthrown and annexed Hawaii. The US 'owned' Hawaii the same way Hitler 'owned' the Sudetenland. The point being the roots (ie, cause) of Pearl Harbor stretch back to 19th century US imperialism, throwing its weight around, and generally being in places it shouldn't have been. > but the US takeover of Hawaii was not the causus belli for Pearl Harbor. I didn't say it was a casus belli (no U), did I?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    You said "caused". Not "it would not have happened" (that is, it was one essential factor), but "caused" (that is, this is what made that happen). To see the difference, do a thought experiment. The US takes Hawaii in 1893, but does not end the sale of oil, rubber, metal, and everything else militarily useful to Japan in 1937. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Probably not, because the US is not signaling opposition to Japan's invasion of China. On the other hand, say the US doesn't "invade, overthrow, and annex" Hawaii. It merely negotiates for a naval base. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Yes.
    - hartpuff 11y ago
      > You said "caused". Not "it would not have happened" (that is, it was one essential factor), but "caused" (that is, this is what made that happen). I said "caused" because I was copying the statement and style of the previous poster. His point (I believe) alluded to the commonly held belief that the roots of WWII lay in WWI; my point, since he used 1941, was that the roots of Pearl Harbor lay closer to home. > To see the difference, do a thought experiment. The US takes Hawaii in 1893, but does not end the sale of oil, rubber, metal, and everything else militarily useful to Japan in 1937. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Probably not, because the US is not signaling opposition to Japan's invasion of China. Okay, I say in this fictional version of history that it still does happen, because the US is still in places it should not be, due to its late 19th century imperialism, and still poses a military threat to Japanese ambitions in the region. > On the other hand, say the US doesn't "invade, overthrow, and annex" Hawaii. It merely negotiates for a naval base. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Yes. Why does it still happen? If the US is acting peacefully in this imaginary situation, why can't Japan?

dctoedt 11y ago

> * when [the U.S.] finally joined (when Germany's defeat was already a foregone conclusion due to Barbarossa)* Germany's defeat was hardly a foregone conclusion in December 1941. Sure, in hindsight it now appears that way. But all the history books indicate that things looked mighty different at the time.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> 1941 (Pearl Harbor) was not caused by 1915 (WWI), it was caused by 1893 and the invasion, overthrow and annexation of Hawaii that led the military of the US empire to be there in the first place. Caused? No. It wouldn't have happened if the US didn't own Hawaii in 1941, but the US takeover of Hawaii was not the causus belli for Pearl Harbor.

hartpuff 11y ago
> It wouldn't have happened if the US didn't own Hawaii in 1941 Which is what I said, except I put it more honestly: it would not have happened had the US not invaded, overthrown and annexed Hawaii. The US 'owned' Hawaii the same way Hitler 'owned' the Sudetenland. The point being the roots (ie, cause) of Pearl Harbor stretch back to 19th century US imperialism, throwing its weight around, and generally being in places it shouldn't have been. > but the US takeover of Hawaii was not the causus belli for Pearl Harbor. I didn't say it was a casus belli (no U), did I?
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  You said "caused". Not "it would not have happened" (that is, it was one essential factor), but "caused" (that is, this is what made that happen). To see the difference, do a thought experiment. The US takes Hawaii in 1893, but does not end the sale of oil, rubber, metal, and everything else militarily useful to Japan in 1937. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Probably not, because the US is not signaling opposition to Japan's invasion of China. On the other hand, say the US doesn't "invade, overthrow, and annex" Hawaii. It merely negotiates for a naval base. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Yes.
  - hartpuff 11y ago
    > You said "caused". Not "it would not have happened" (that is, it was one essential factor), but "caused" (that is, this is what made that happen). I said "caused" because I was copying the statement and style of the previous poster. His point (I believe) alluded to the commonly held belief that the roots of WWII lay in WWI; my point, since he used 1941, was that the roots of Pearl Harbor lay closer to home. > To see the difference, do a thought experiment. The US takes Hawaii in 1893, but does not end the sale of oil, rubber, metal, and everything else militarily useful to Japan in 1937. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Probably not, because the US is not signaling opposition to Japan's invasion of China. Okay, I say in this fictional version of history that it still does happen, because the US is still in places it should not be, due to its late 19th century imperialism, and still poses a military threat to Japanese ambitions in the region. > On the other hand, say the US doesn't "invade, overthrow, and annex" Hawaii. It merely negotiates for a naval base. Does Pearl Harbor still happen? Yes. Why does it still happen? If the US is acting peacefully in this imaginary situation, why can't Japan?