6 ms·

A lot of people, including myself, feel similar when looking back at WWII. The roles of good and evil were very clearly defined and that has forged the US fore

A lot of people, including myself, feel similar when looking back at WWII. The roles of good and evil were very clearly defined and that has forged the US foreign policy up to today. Of course, there's a lot of things we know now which show the conflict was a lot more complex, but at its core, the Axis needed to be defeated for our western style of freedom to exist. I don't think we'll ever have something as clear cut as WWII again. News was highly controlled by a few media institutions and our country (US) was much less fractured than it is today.

davidw 2y ago
I have spent most of my life with the US involved in a variety of ... "not very clear cut things" and we'll leave it at that. It also feels like some things have shifted and there actually is a lot more clarity lately.
- asdfqwertzxcv 2y ago
  Agreed. History is rhyming a lot, lately. Feels like we're reliving events from about 100ish years ago.
llamaimperative 2y ago
You should read up a bit more on how people perceived it contemporaneously. It’s too easy to absolve oneself of having to think hard about the current goings on when we can look at WWII and act like the right answer was obvious to everyone.
- montagg 2y ago
  This is an important point. There was a US isolationist strain as strong as it is today. The Man in the High Castle alt history, or The Plot Against America, both involve FDR not being involved for WW2, and that's where the US stands today: at a similar decision point about how it decides to act. The right path is never clear when you're in the valley of the moment.
  - lukan 2y ago
    "The right path is never clear when you're in the valley of the moment." Also in hindsight it is not always clear, if the choosen path was really the best.
  - rufus_foreman 2y ago
    >> There was a US isolationist strain as strong as it is today As strong as? I don't see much of an isolationist strain in the US today at all. The paleoconservatives are isolationist, but they barely exist any more. The Biden administration appointed a neoconservative as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
    - macintux 2y ago
      The former President reportedly was ready to pull the U.S. from NATO in his second term, and has demonstrated a strong affinity toward the autocrats currently making life miserable for our allies, which has carried over to his entire party.
      - rufus_foreman 2y ago
        Leaving NATO is not "isolationism". And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". NATO countries made a deal, part of that deal was 2% of GDP to defense, there are NATO countries that over and over have refused to keep their part of the deal, they promised to do something and year after year after year, broke their promise. Saying, "OK, we have had enough, deal is off" is not "isolationism", it's a common sense bargaining technique. And "a strong affinity toward foreign autocrats", if it were true, would also not be "isolationism", it would be the opposite of isolationism. An isolationist country does not have a strong affinity for foreign leaders of any type. I'm not quite an isolationist, but I lean that way. I wish Trump was an isolationist. I wish there was any major politician that was. Sadly, no.
        chipdart 2y ago
- SkipperCat 2y ago
  I mention that in my 3rd sentence, but as an American of Jewish decent, the sides of WWII could not have been any clearer. My family did not have the option to weigh the facts and choose a side, it was chosen for us. I am just thankful that we happened to leave Europe before it all fell apart.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    You said that now we see it as more complex. You should read about the actual arguments that were being made for and against intervention at that time. There absolutely was not an obvious consensus in the US until Pearl Harbor.
TheAlchemist 2y ago
That's true towards the end of the war, but in the beginning ? The US didn't join the war until they were attacked. Same goes for UK and France - they technically did declare the war when Poland was invaded - as there was a defensive agreement between the 3 countries - but in reality they didn't send any help.
- thombat 2y ago
  What help could they realistically send? Poland was between the two nations that were invading it and the UK was only just introducing a bomber (Wellington) with the range for a direct return flight to Warsaw (and such a flight was impossible since it passes over Germany). Marine access means a long Baltic voyage past the main German navy bases. An assault on Germany would have been via the neighbouring countries and so needed their cooperation, and would still have come too late to save Poland.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    When Germany invaded Poland, the vast majority of its (believe it or not limited) fighting power was fully tied up in that conflict. During that same time, The larger, stronger, better equipped French army could have (with the aid of the BEF) invaded Germany from its border with it (and possibly even through Belgium) and caused absolute chaos in the German's plans for expansion. ven if the French/British had failed to make that invasion decisive, it would almost certainly have broken the back of the entire chain of lightning victories and support for Hitler that came later. At the very least, that preemptive invasion attempt would have been able to mobilize the French Army enough to completely forestall the terrible consequences of low morale and rapid military collapse that eventually befell France when it actually was invaded so spectacularly. The above is in my view a near certainty if it had happened that way. More speculatively, had Churchill been Prime Minister instead of Chamberlain at the time of the Poland invasion (instead of becoming PM right at the time of the invasion of France), the British response would have been much stronger and that would have prompted an also stronger French response that could have dramatically curtailed the scope of the European war. Hitler's army in 1939 simply wasn't good or well provisioned enough to sustain anything serious against any major enemy. It pulled off what it pulled off in the following months more through a mix of luck and sheer blunder by its enemies.
jltsiren 2y ago
The European theater of WW2 was a war between nazism and communism, with free countries on both sides, depending on where they happened to be located. East of a certain line, the initial aggressor was the USSR, not Germany. It was a confusing war, with some countries switching sides more than once and some countries being at war with some but not all major powers on the other side. Things looked clearer on the Western Front, because it was a peripheral front outside the main conflict.
keybored 2y ago
> Of course, there's a lot of things we know now which show the conflict was a lot more complex, but at its core, the Axis needed to be defeated for our western style of freedom to exist. The problem with this hero narrative is the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union (contrary to D-Day propaganda movies) was instrumental to winning the war. So how does the Soviet Union fit into that considering that these same patriots claim the the Soviet Union was evil and hated freedom? Note that I make no claims about what the Soviet Union was about. This is about the cohesion of the “our western style of freedom” belief.
oooyay 2y ago
The post-hoc rationalizations are clearly defined, which makes people more comfortable paying homage to WWII despite it being incredibly dicey. I say post-hoc because the US actually had a rather large Nazi party forming. Most people joining the war were pretty aloof as to why. It was only when those troops encountered the the Nazi death camps that the state of things became clear. The US primarily joined the war effort not because we heard what was happening to Jews, not because there was a massive land grab occurring, and not because two countries had gone an absolutely psychotic blitzkrieg - but because the Japanese Empire dared to bomb our strategic island fleet. It was a major blow, but just enough to wake up a sleeping beast. I say WWII was dicey because we literally burned cities, we dropped nuclear bombs, we leveled entire cities with bombing runs as show of force. You can argue these things were necessary - and I agree! But it's important to realize much of this occurred before we knew about the atrocities. If you read enough Sun Tzu, nobody really knows (from a warriors perspective) why they go to war until you're there. The populace almost never knows the truth, even through time, because most of what they're told is a story that changes with time. It's true of most wars.
- SkipperCat 2y ago
  It has been said if the US and its allies lost WWII, the victorious Axis would have tried and executed the US military leaders for war crimes for the bombing campaigns. A prime example of history is written by the victors. PBS did a great documentary of Nazis in the US pre-WWII https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/nazi-town-usa/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/nazi-town-... It elaborates on your point about the large US Nazi presence.
  - jimbobthrowawy 2y ago
    Were any axis leaders tried for war crimes related to bombing campaigns? Most of what I've heard of relates to smaller more specific warcrimes and ones related to genocide. I'm sure there's more examples, but the only allied case I can think of was a soldier convicted for hiding in an ambulance and shooting from it.
    - 2y ago

davidw 2y ago

I have spent most of my life with the US involved in a variety of ... "not very clear cut things" and we'll leave it at that. It also feels like some things have shifted and there actually is a lot more clarity lately.

asdfqwertzxcv 2y ago
Agreed. History is rhyming a lot, lately. Feels like we're reliving events from about 100ish years ago.

llamaimperative 2y ago

You should read up a bit more on how people perceived it contemporaneously. It’s too easy to absolve oneself of having to think hard about the current goings on when we can look at WWII and act like the right answer was obvious to everyone.

montagg 2y ago
This is an important point. There was a US isolationist strain as strong as it is today. The Man in the High Castle alt history, or The Plot Against America, both involve FDR not being involved for WW2, and that's where the US stands today: at a similar decision point about how it decides to act. The right path is never clear when you're in the valley of the moment.
- lukan 2y ago
  "The right path is never clear when you're in the valley of the moment." Also in hindsight it is not always clear, if the choosen path was really the best.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  >> There was a US isolationist strain as strong as it is today As strong as? I don't see much of an isolationist strain in the US today at all. The paleoconservatives are isolationist, but they barely exist any more. The Biden administration appointed a neoconservative as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
  - macintux 2y ago
    The former President reportedly was ready to pull the U.S. from NATO in his second term, and has demonstrated a strong affinity toward the autocrats currently making life miserable for our allies, which has carried over to his entire party.
    - rufus_foreman 2y ago
      Leaving NATO is not "isolationism". And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". NATO countries made a deal, part of that deal was 2% of GDP to defense, there are NATO countries that over and over have refused to keep their part of the deal, they promised to do something and year after year after year, broke their promise. Saying, "OK, we have had enough, deal is off" is not "isolationism", it's a common sense bargaining technique. And "a strong affinity toward foreign autocrats", if it were true, would also not be "isolationism", it would be the opposite of isolationism. An isolationist country does not have a strong affinity for foreign leaders of any type. I'm not quite an isolationist, but I lean that way. I wish Trump was an isolationist. I wish there was any major politician that was. Sadly, no.
      - chipdart 2y ago
SkipperCat 2y ago
I mention that in my 3rd sentence, but as an American of Jewish decent, the sides of WWII could not have been any clearer. My family did not have the option to weigh the facts and choose a side, it was chosen for us. I am just thankful that we happened to leave Europe before it all fell apart.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  You said that now we see it as more complex. You should read about the actual arguments that were being made for and against intervention at that time. There absolutely was not an obvious consensus in the US until Pearl Harbor.

TheAlchemist 2y ago

That's true towards the end of the war, but in the beginning ? The US didn't join the war until they were attacked. Same goes for UK and France - they technically did declare the war when Poland was invaded - as there was a defensive agreement between the 3 countries - but in reality they didn't send any help.

thombat 2y ago
What help could they realistically send? Poland was between the two nations that were invading it and the UK was only just introducing a bomber (Wellington) with the range for a direct return flight to Warsaw (and such a flight was impossible since it passes over Germany). Marine access means a long Baltic voyage past the main German navy bases. An assault on Germany would have been via the neighbouring countries and so needed their cooperation, and would still have come too late to save Poland.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  When Germany invaded Poland, the vast majority of its (believe it or not limited) fighting power was fully tied up in that conflict. During that same time, The larger, stronger, better equipped French army could have (with the aid of the BEF) invaded Germany from its border with it (and possibly even through Belgium) and caused absolute chaos in the German's plans for expansion. ven if the French/British had failed to make that invasion decisive, it would almost certainly have broken the back of the entire chain of lightning victories and support for Hitler that came later. At the very least, that preemptive invasion attempt would have been able to mobilize the French Army enough to completely forestall the terrible consequences of low morale and rapid military collapse that eventually befell France when it actually was invaded so spectacularly. The above is in my view a near certainty if it had happened that way. More speculatively, had Churchill been Prime Minister instead of Chamberlain at the time of the Poland invasion (instead of becoming PM right at the time of the invasion of France), the British response would have been much stronger and that would have prompted an also stronger French response that could have dramatically curtailed the scope of the European war. Hitler's army in 1939 simply wasn't good or well provisioned enough to sustain anything serious against any major enemy. It pulled off what it pulled off in the following months more through a mix of luck and sheer blunder by its enemies.

jltsiren 2y ago

The European theater of WW2 was a war between nazism and communism, with free countries on both sides, depending on where they happened to be located. East of a certain line, the initial aggressor was the USSR, not Germany. It was a confusing war, with some countries switching sides more than once and some countries being at war with some but not all major powers on the other side. Things looked clearer on the Western Front, because it was a peripheral front outside the main conflict.

keybored 2y ago

> Of course, there's a lot of things we know now which show the conflict was a lot more complex, but at its core, the Axis needed to be defeated for our western style of freedom to exist. The problem with this hero narrative is the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union (contrary to D-Day propaganda movies) was instrumental to winning the war. So how does the Soviet Union fit into that considering that these same patriots claim the the Soviet Union was evil and hated freedom? Note that I make no claims about what the Soviet Union was about. This is about the cohesion of the “our western style of freedom” belief.

oooyay 2y ago

The post-hoc rationalizations are clearly defined, which makes people more comfortable paying homage to WWII despite it being incredibly dicey. I say post-hoc because the US actually had a rather large Nazi party forming. Most people joining the war were pretty aloof as to why. It was only when those troops encountered the the Nazi death camps that the state of things became clear. The US primarily joined the war effort not because we heard what was happening to Jews, not because there was a massive land grab occurring, and not because two countries had gone an absolutely psychotic blitzkrieg - but because the Japanese Empire dared to bomb our strategic island fleet. It was a major blow, but just enough to wake up a sleeping beast. I say WWII was dicey because we literally burned cities, we dropped nuclear bombs, we leveled entire cities with bombing runs as show of force. You can argue these things were necessary - and I agree! But it's important to realize much of this occurred before we knew about the atrocities. If you read enough Sun Tzu, nobody really knows (from a warriors perspective) why they go to war until you're there. The populace almost never knows the truth, even through time, because most of what they're told is a story that changes with time. It's true of most wars.

SkipperCat 2y ago
It has been said if the US and its allies lost WWII, the victorious Axis would have tried and executed the US military leaders for war crimes for the bombing campaigns. A prime example of history is written by the victors. PBS did a great documentary of Nazis in the US pre-WWII https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/nazi-town-usa/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/nazi-town-... It elaborates on your point about the large US Nazi presence.
- jimbobthrowawy 2y ago
  Were any axis leaders tried for war crimes related to bombing campaigns? Most of what I've heard of relates to smaller more specific warcrimes and ones related to genocide. I'm sure there's more examples, but the only allied case I can think of was a soldier convicted for hiding in an ambulance and shooting from it.
  - 2y ago