4 ms·

Roosevelt won in 1940 in large part because he was running against an interventionist that wanted to join the war alongside the allies, but the US population wa

Roosevelt won in 1940 in large part because he was running against an interventionist that wanted to join the war alongside the allies, but the US population was either largely against any intervention, or was outwardly pro-Nazi[0]. If it wasn't for Japan forcing our hand, the US would have been perfectly happy profiting from supplying other countries' war efforts, and building up their military while the rest of the world was destroying their own; All while turning a blind eye to the atrocities occurring in Europe and Asia. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Squ...

bbarnett 5y ago
During early WWII, prior to Pearl Harbour, the US used to place supplies on the US side of the Canadian/US border. We'd then "steal" those supplies, thus allowing the US to avoid breaking non-aggression treaties, and (as you mentioned) the ire of some of its citizenry. Not much profit in theft.
- jononor 5y ago
  Everyone except the final payer (the government, indirectly the people) made profits. Same happens if the supplies and munitions were used instead of stolen. Many people profit along the way, and it is the same today.
  - bbarnett 5y ago
    Yes, but this does not refute what I said. The parent comment makes it appear as if the motive for staying out of the was was, easy profit. Clearly not so.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Source? As we set up multiple "legal" ways of abiding by the letter of the treaty while also selling arms. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that.
  - bbarnett 5y ago
    Surely you realise your language implies intent. Not wanting to spill their blood, not wanting to enter a conflict which (at the time) seemed only to aid old, dying empires (eg France, UK), means the goal in not entering the conflict, was all about profit? What a twisted viewpoint. Meanwhile, if the US does enter a conflict, the goal is always claimed by some, to be exploitation. Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair. I cannot find an easy source for the history lesson I learned in school. Take it or leave it as it stands.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      I did not say that the only motivation behind the nonintervention was profit, but it would have been one of the results of the policy. Even if true, your unproven claim that we let Canada steal from us does not mean much of America would have happily sat back and profited. >Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair. That is what it means to be an empire. There's no "good" empire, they all exist to prop themselves up to greater heights.
      - bbarnett 5y ago
        By using "only motivation" in your response, you are indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention. It wasn't. At all. Period. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that. You've actually claimed that Roosevelt ran on a platform of "Let's sit back and not do anything, so we can make a profit". Come on! Give it a rest, please! Further, the average American (re: the voter) didn't give a rat's ass about some corp they worked for, turning a profit thanks to war profiteering. And many Americans even wanted to enter the war! You know how voting works. On to your other comment. If there is no "good" empire, then there is no "evil" empire. You cannot remove moral labels on only one side, yet leave them on the other. Ergo, you've essentially stated that Nazi Germany has no justified, negative moral connotation to it? Sorry, there are empires that revolve around a negative, evil premise. And those which revolve around a positive, good premise. But let's step back from this a bit, and do what some might find sensible. Look at historical empires, comparatively, and assess the US against them. Is the US perfect? Certainly not! However, are you? I? Nope. Yet compare the US to other empires. Especially world spanning empires. Whilst the UK, France, all the way back to Rome, Greece, were not superpowers, they were "known world" spanning. World impacting. Now assess the policies of these empires. Comparatively? The US is the most benign empire ever. EVER. Assess its strength, versus countries it invades. If the US behaved as the UK, the entire planet would be under its boot! If it behaved as Nazi Germany, can you even imagine? It sickens me to have to defend the US, for I do indeed know it is not perfect. The US rolls over in its sleep, and crushes parts of Canada's economy. Yet I don't seem to recall post WWII US threatening to invade Canada, if we didn't pass copyright laws it likes. I don't recall the US capturing Iraq, and hauling off "undesirables* to concentration camps by the millions. I don't recall the US invading countries, and maintaining control after the fact -- for hundreds of years. Oh sure, yes "Well, the US did this, corporate that, it's all for this and that" so what. We're comparing empires here. So please, show me a world spanning empire, ever, which behaved with as much restraint as the US has. And bear in mind, the US literally could overthrow 90% of the planet in a matter of 20 years. Just... it sickens me to see the US's own citizens, denigrate her so. Now... do I respect your desire to reign in the US? Keep it restrained? Under control? YES! By God yes, I do. But why on Earth make up contrived stuff, like the US was a land of profiteering, sniveling, hand wringing people, staying out of a war because PROFIT. Please stop! Please!

bbarnett 5y ago

During early WWII, prior to Pearl Harbour, the US used to place supplies on the US side of the Canadian/US border. We'd then "steal" those supplies, thus allowing the US to avoid breaking non-aggression treaties, and (as you mentioned) the ire of some of its citizenry. Not much profit in theft.

jononor 5y ago
Everyone except the final payer (the government, indirectly the people) made profits. Same happens if the supplies and munitions were used instead of stolen. Many people profit along the way, and it is the same today.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  Yes, but this does not refute what I said. The parent comment makes it appear as if the motive for staying out of the was was, easy profit. Clearly not so.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Source? As we set up multiple "legal" ways of abiding by the letter of the treaty while also selling arms. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  Surely you realise your language implies intent. Not wanting to spill their blood, not wanting to enter a conflict which (at the time) seemed only to aid old, dying empires (eg France, UK), means the goal in not entering the conflict, was all about profit? What a twisted viewpoint. Meanwhile, if the US does enter a conflict, the goal is always claimed by some, to be exploitation. Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair. I cannot find an easy source for the history lesson I learned in school. Take it or leave it as it stands.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    I did not say that the only motivation behind the nonintervention was profit, but it would have been one of the results of the policy. Even if true, your unproven claim that we let Canada steal from us does not mean much of America would have happily sat back and profited. >Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair. That is what it means to be an empire. There's no "good" empire, they all exist to prop themselves up to greater heights.
    - bbarnett 5y ago
      By using "only motivation" in your response, you are indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention. It wasn't. At all. Period. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that. You've actually claimed that Roosevelt ran on a platform of "Let's sit back and not do anything, so we can make a profit". Come on! Give it a rest, please! Further, the average American (re: the voter) didn't give a rat's ass about some corp they worked for, turning a profit thanks to war profiteering. And many Americans even wanted to enter the war! You know how voting works. On to your other comment. If there is no "good" empire, then there is no "evil" empire. You cannot remove moral labels on only one side, yet leave them on the other. Ergo, you've essentially stated that Nazi Germany has no justified, negative moral connotation to it? Sorry, there are empires that revolve around a negative, evil premise. And those which revolve around a positive, good premise. But let's step back from this a bit, and do what some might find sensible. Look at historical empires, comparatively, and assess the US against them. Is the US perfect? Certainly not! However, are you? I? Nope. Yet compare the US to other empires. Especially world spanning empires. Whilst the UK, France, all the way back to Rome, Greece, were not superpowers, they were "known world" spanning. World impacting. Now assess the policies of these empires. Comparatively? The US is the most benign empire ever. EVER. Assess its strength, versus countries it invades. If the US behaved as the UK, the entire planet would be under its boot! If it behaved as Nazi Germany, can you even imagine? It sickens me to have to defend the US, for I do indeed know it is not perfect. The US rolls over in its sleep, and crushes parts of Canada's economy. Yet I don't seem to recall post WWII US threatening to invade Canada, if we didn't pass copyright laws it likes. I don't recall the US capturing Iraq, and hauling off "undesirables* to concentration camps by the millions. I don't recall the US invading countries, and maintaining control after the fact -- for hundreds of years. Oh sure, yes "Well, the US did this, corporate that, it's all for this and that" so what. We're comparing empires here. So please, show me a world spanning empire, ever, which behaved with as much restraint as the US has. And bear in mind, the US literally could overthrow 90% of the planet in a matter of 20 years. Just... it sickens me to see the US's own citizens, denigrate her so. Now... do I respect your desire to reign in the US? Keep it restrained? Under control? YES! By God yes, I do. But why on Earth make up contrived stuff, like the US was a land of profiteering, sniveling, hand wringing people, staying out of a war because PROFIT. Please stop! Please!