4 ms·
Europe has been ruined, since USA interfered militarily in Europe. Since 1900, major U.S. military interventions in Europe have included full-scale combat oper
by roschdal 2mo ago
Europe has been ruined, since USA interfered militarily in Europe.
Since 1900, major U.S. military interventions in Europe have included full-scale combat operations during World War I (1917–1918) and World War II (1941–1945), as well as targeted Allied troop deployments in Archangel and Siberia during the Russian Civil War (1918–1920). Throughout the Cold War, U.S. forces executed non-combat and advisory operations, such as supplying West Berlin during the Berlin Airlift (1948–1949) and providing direct military aid during the Greek Civil War (1947–1949). In the post-Cold War era, the U.S. engaged in several NATO-led Balkan campaigns, including airstrikes and peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–1995), a 78-day air campaign and ground deployment in Yugoslavia and Kosovo (1999), and a brief disarmament operation in North Macedonia (2001).
- nobodywillobsrv 2mo agoYes. This is basically true but unclear the causal link to the true problems.
- gfrecvh 2mo agoI would to like to know which of its interventions you're talking about. People don't normally complain about the help on WW2
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- perpetuallunch 2mo agoWhen did the USA interfere militarily in Europe? Would Europe have been better off under Nazi Germany? Is that what you’re saying?
- watwut 2mo agoYes, I think he is saying that. I disagree strongly and think OP is nazi. They still exist and are even acquiring power again.
- MisterMower 2mo agoYou can hold the position that Hitler and the Nazis were evil while also believing US involvement in WWII was unnecessary and detrimental in the long term. The history of Europe is one of unending conflict all the way back to Roman times. So what if Hitler controls all of Europe? From an American perspective very little changes. Had Hitler not been beligerent toward the British and allowed trade with the US to continue there was basically no reason for the US to be involved. Everyone would likely have been better off: 30 million civilian deaths could have been avoided, the iron curtain moves much farther east and millions more avoid the purges and starvation under the rule of the USSR after Europe us divided at the end of the war. An alternate universe exists where Operation Barbarossa is successful because Hitler is not fighting a war on two fronts, and the USSR is either fragmented or controlled by Germany and the Cold War never even commences. Additionally, Europe doesn’t become defacto occupied by the US for decades and atrophy to the point where half their cities are smaller than they were a few generations ago. I personally don’t think such an outcome would have been better, but a strong argument can be made, and making it doesn’t mean you’re a nazi.
- andsoitis 2mo ago> You can hold the position that Hitler and the Nazis were evil while also believing US involvement in WWII was unnecessary and detrimental in the long term. One could hold that position, but I think the vast majority of people would agree that it was the best choice for the US to get involved in WWII in the way it did.
- MisterMower 2mo agoBest for whom?
- 2mo ago
- flohofwoe 2mo agoThese were all good things though? What are you're trying to get at? That Europe would have been better off under fascist or communist rule?
- watwut 2mo agoAmerican involvement in WWII was something Europe should be and is thankful for.