5 ms·

If the US's involvement was because of 'defend the rights of man', it sure took it's time getting properly involved. It doesn't even really make sense, because

by vacri 10y ago

If the US's involvement was because of 'defend the rights of man', it sure took it's time getting properly involved. It doesn't even really make sense, because it's not like the Germans were going to enslave the French if they won.

Clubber 10y ago
During WWI and WWII, the US made a fortune selling armaments to the allies and then joining the war towards the end. In WWII we claimed an equal share of the spoils, at least in Europe. England, France, US and the USSR split the spoils of WWII but the USSR definitely deserved 3/4 of it for their sacrifice. I always akin it to tag team wrestling. The first guy beats the other team almost silly, then tags out and the fresh guy comes in fresh and finishes them off.
- flukus 10y ago
  World wars aren't a 1 on 1 fight though. WW1 was a 3 on 2 fight and the US involvement early would have made it 4 on 2, tipping the scales considerably.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    Yes, but the US was staunchly isolationist during that period (since it's founding). In fact, the founding fathers wrote extensively about not getting involved in European wars; military isolationism was in our DNA. That's hard to believe today. Wilson actually campaigned on an anti-war platform (as did FDR).
    - vacri 10y ago
      > military isolationism was in our DNA ... You mean apart from the Indian wars which annexed territory, the Mexican-American war which annexed territory, and the Spanish-American war which annexed territory? Then there was the War of 1812, where the US tried and failed to annex Canadian territory. Or the Barbary wars. The US not wanting to involve itself in internal European wars does not mean it was militarily isolationist. The US has been projecting military power beyond its borders pretty much since its inception. Military power projection is in the US's DNA, not isolationism.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Clubber 10y ago
        Look up the definition of isolationism.
        vacri 10y ago
        I would say that invading the territory of other nations and annexing it counts as involving yourself in the affairs of other nations. Historically, the US didn't want to interfere in Europe, absolutely, but it stuck its fingers in pretty much every other pie, excluding sub-Saharan Africa. I mean, how do you characterise sending warships to scare Japan into opening up for trade in 1868 as 'isolationism'?
        Clubber 10y ago
        Isolationism doesn't mean never projecting military power, it means not getting involved in alliances that don't serve, or barely serve our own interests. George Washington's farewell address addressed this: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." Thomas Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Monroe: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." Seward: "defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations'...[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference." Here's a Wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-intervention... You seem to be arguing that the US projects military power in it's own interests. That's undeniable, but claiming that as a counterpoint that we weren't isolationist in the 19th century is not what isolation means. For recent examples: invading Afghanistan was for our own interests; we were attacked by a group sheltered by their government. Iraq was not. Syria is not. Balkans in the 1990s was not. Panama was because of the canal and trade routes. WWI and WWII ultimately was in our best interests but it wasn't obvious at the time, particularly early on, and the cost was immense. Right now, we are so intertwined in alliances that if just about any country goes to war outside of sub-saharan Africa, we are automatically at war.
- PerfectDlite 10y ago
  > USSR definitely deserved 3/4 of it for their sacrifice If only USSR didn't enter WW2 on Hitler's side...
hackuser 10y ago
Sorry, my mistake. Message deleted.
- barrkel 10y ago
  We were talking about WWI, not WWII.

by vacri 10y ago

Clubber 10y ago

During WWI and WWII, the US made a fortune selling armaments to the allies and then joining the war towards the end. In WWII we claimed an equal share of the spoils, at least in Europe. England, France, US and the USSR split the spoils of WWII but the USSR definitely deserved 3/4 of it for their sacrifice. I always akin it to tag team wrestling. The first guy beats the other team almost silly, then tags out and the fresh guy comes in fresh and finishes them off.

flukus 10y ago
World wars aren't a 1 on 1 fight though. WW1 was a 3 on 2 fight and the US involvement early would have made it 4 on 2, tipping the scales considerably.
- Clubber 10y ago
  Yes, but the US was staunchly isolationist during that period (since it's founding). In fact, the founding fathers wrote extensively about not getting involved in European wars; military isolationism was in our DNA. That's hard to believe today. Wilson actually campaigned on an anti-war platform (as did FDR).
  - vacri 10y ago
    > military isolationism was in our DNA ... You mean apart from the Indian wars which annexed territory, the Mexican-American war which annexed territory, and the Spanish-American war which annexed territory? Then there was the War of 1812, where the US tried and failed to annex Canadian territory. Or the Barbary wars. The US not wanting to involve itself in internal European wars does not mean it was militarily isolationist. The US has been projecting military power beyond its borders pretty much since its inception. Military power projection is in the US's DNA, not isolationism.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Clubber 10y ago
      Look up the definition of isolationism.
      - vacri 10y ago
        I would say that invading the territory of other nations and annexing it counts as involving yourself in the affairs of other nations. Historically, the US didn't want to interfere in Europe, absolutely, but it stuck its fingers in pretty much every other pie, excluding sub-Saharan Africa. I mean, how do you characterise sending warships to scare Japan into opening up for trade in 1868 as 'isolationism'?
        Clubber 10y ago
        Isolationism doesn't mean never projecting military power, it means not getting involved in alliances that don't serve, or barely serve our own interests. George Washington's farewell address addressed this: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." Thomas Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Monroe: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." Seward: "defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations'...[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference." Here's a Wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-intervention... You seem to be arguing that the US projects military power in it's own interests. That's undeniable, but claiming that as a counterpoint that we weren't isolationist in the 19th century is not what isolation means. For recent examples: invading Afghanistan was for our own interests; we were attacked by a group sheltered by their government. Iraq was not. Syria is not. Balkans in the 1990s was not. Panama was because of the canal and trade routes. WWI and WWII ultimately was in our best interests but it wasn't obvious at the time, particularly early on, and the cost was immense. Right now, we are so intertwined in alliances that if just about any country goes to war outside of sub-saharan Africa, we are automatically at war.
PerfectDlite 10y ago
> USSR definitely deserved 3/4 of it for their sacrifice If only USSR didn't enter WW2 on Hitler's side...

hackuser 10y ago

Sorry, my mistake. Message deleted.

barrkel 10y ago
We were talking about WWI, not WWII.