6 ms·

Well I do hate to say it but we've always had an "us or them" mentality to the rest of the world. I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to watch E

by mpyne 13y ago

Well I do hate to say it but we've always had an "us or them" mentality to the rest of the world. I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to watch Europe burn from afar rather than do anything. There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact. You'll notice that much of the furor has come from the idea that the NSA might be watching what Americans are doing. For everything else there was effectively a big giant "Of course they were bugging $FOO, that's their job". Obviously Europe doesn't feel the same way (and didn't with ECHELON)...

spacecity1971 13y ago
Isolationist? Maybe. Neutrality was, I think, the motivation (historically).
- mpyne 13y ago
  Neutrality was the excuse, and a natural side-effect of isolationist principles.
  - spacecity1971 13y ago
    Perhaps. It was arguably baked in to the Constitution though, and adhered to in spirit, if not in deed.
xradionut 13y ago
"Well I do hate to say it but we've always had an "us or them" mentality to the rest of the world. I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to watch Europe burn from afar rather than do anything. There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact." The rich would have made more money selling arms to both sides. (In fact some did.)
- dpe82 13y ago
  The rich and their employees both.
- GoodIntentions 13y ago
  You might have read this already. mebbe not. "wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0945001533 http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0945001533 You can probably find it as a pdf someplace too, as it is a pretty old book. Read it and try to see the difference between the US industrialists and German industrialists in the dock at Nueremburg. Same sh*t, different piles imho.
Natsu 13y ago
> Obviously Europe doesn't feel the same way (and didn't with ECHELON)... Their people or their governments? Their people disagree with this, as we do. Their governments have long appeared to be cooperating, even if they drop their monocles into their drinks every time something like this comes out.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Parts of the governments certainly don't like it. But I don't have enough experience with parliamentary (or European) politics to be able to tell how much that actually matters. But I would presume that even parliamentary government must bow to public outcry in some form.
philwelch 13y ago
> I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to watch Europe burn from afar rather than do anything. There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact. Yes, and? Did Europe intervene in the American Civil War, or in any of the multitude of conflicts in the Americas, East Asia, or Africa over the past 200 years? Even the rest of Europe abandoned Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Germans before Poland fell. Going to war is a huge commitment, and doing it purely for the benefit of a continent that has spent the last several centuries hell-bent on destroying itself sounds like a really bad idea. The worst part is, when the US government does see a situation that calls for military intervention, like Vietnam or Iraq, that gets criticized as well.
- fieryeagle 13y ago
  Do read up more on the history of both wars as 'seeing a situation' was a pretty simple-minded opinion there. It took much much more than a call for justice to move the military gears. There were always political or economic agendas hidden under any wars and that makes one reason for criticism. I don't even want to get started on other reasons.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    > There were always political or economic agendas hidden under any wars Which is why the US was reluctant to get involved in the World Wars. You can't have it both ways.
    - fieryeagle 13y ago
      Interestingly, there have been multiple speculations on US's involvement in WW2: One is the good democratic fight versus the bad facists. US were hampered by the isolationist views held by quite a number of senators at the time, hence there was no direct involvement until after Pearl Harbour attack, which resulted in an almost uniform senatorial agreement on declaration of war. Another is that US could have kept maintaining the profit stream from arms-dealing to both sides (Germany still imported American arms prior to 1941 or so, if I'm not mistaken) but got unwillingly dragged into the war. Yet another more cynical view is that after the huge Axis loss at USSR, US just saw the opportunity to join in and mope up what's left of the Axis since winners get to dictate the terms. The Pearl Harbour event was a surprising but timely excuse.
Svip 13y ago
> There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact. The US would have joined the war. By 1940, the US was practically involved in the war, just without men. German U-Boats were sinking American convoys, and American ships were destroying German U-Boats. It was only a matter of time before the US would have joined the war, Pearl Harbor or not. FDR was prepared to fight it without the approval of Congress. The US entry into the First World War was primarily to be a participant in the peace negotiations, so Wilson could present his 14 points, create the League of Nations and ensure American dominance in world politics (something the USA has refrained from participating in prior to the First World War, despite its economical power). The Second World War pretty much started with American involvement, but it was not until Pearl Harbor that the USA could finally - publicly - commit its entire arsenal. But regardless, you would have found a way to join the war. Japan just did you a favour.

by mpyne 13y ago

spacecity1971 13y ago

Isolationist? Maybe. Neutrality was, I think, the motivation (historically).

mpyne 13y ago
Neutrality was the excuse, and a natural side-effect of isolationist principles.
- spacecity1971 13y ago
  Perhaps. It was arguably baked in to the Constitution though, and adhered to in spirit, if not in deed.

xradionut 13y ago

"Well I do hate to say it but we've always had an "us or them" mentality to the rest of the world. I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to watch Europe burn from afar rather than do anything. There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact." The rich would have made more money selling arms to both sides. (In fact some did.)

dpe82 13y ago
The rich and their employees both.
GoodIntentions 13y ago
You might have read this already. mebbe not. "wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0945001533 http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0945001533 You can probably find it as a pdf someplace too, as it is a pretty old book. Read it and try to see the difference between the US industrialists and German industrialists in the dock at Nueremburg. Same sh*t, different piles imho.

Natsu 13y ago

> Obviously Europe doesn't feel the same way (and didn't with ECHELON)... Their people or their governments? Their people disagree with this, as we do. Their governments have long appeared to be cooperating, even if they drop their monocles into their drinks every time something like this comes out.

mpyne 13y ago
Parts of the governments certainly don't like it. But I don't have enough experience with parliamentary (or European) politics to be able to tell how much that actually matters. But I would presume that even parliamentary government must bow to public outcry in some form.

philwelch 13y ago

> I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to watch Europe burn from afar rather than do anything. There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact. Yes, and? Did Europe intervene in the American Civil War, or in any of the multitude of conflicts in the Americas, East Asia, or Africa over the past 200 years? Even the rest of Europe abandoned Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Germans before Poland fell. Going to war is a huge commitment, and doing it purely for the benefit of a continent that has spent the last several centuries hell-bent on destroying itself sounds like a really bad idea. The worst part is, when the US government does see a situation that calls for military intervention, like Vietnam or Iraq, that gets criticized as well.

fieryeagle 13y ago
Do read up more on the history of both wars as 'seeing a situation' was a pretty simple-minded opinion there. It took much much more than a call for justice to move the military gears. There were always political or economic agendas hidden under any wars and that makes one reason for criticism. I don't even want to get started on other reasons.
- philwelch 13y ago
  > There were always political or economic agendas hidden under any wars Which is why the US was reluctant to get involved in the World Wars. You can't have it both ways.
  - fieryeagle 13y ago
    Interestingly, there have been multiple speculations on US's involvement in WW2: One is the good democratic fight versus the bad facists. US were hampered by the isolationist views held by quite a number of senators at the time, hence there was no direct involvement until after Pearl Harbour attack, which resulted in an almost uniform senatorial agreement on declaration of war. Another is that US could have kept maintaining the profit stream from arms-dealing to both sides (Germany still imported American arms prior to 1941 or so, if I'm not mistaken) but got unwillingly dragged into the war. Yet another more cynical view is that after the huge Axis loss at USSR, US just saw the opportunity to join in and mope up what's left of the Axis since winners get to dictate the terms. The Pearl Harbour event was a surprising but timely excuse.

Svip 13y ago

> There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact. The US would have joined the war. By 1940, the US was practically involved in the war, just without men. German U-Boats were sinking American convoys, and American ships were destroying German U-Boats. It was only a matter of time before the US would have joined the war, Pearl Harbor or not. FDR was prepared to fight it without the approval of Congress. The US entry into the First World War was primarily to be a participant in the peace negotiations, so Wilson could present his 14 points, create the League of Nations and ensure American dominance in world politics (something the USA has refrained from participating in prior to the First World War, despite its economical power). The Second World War pretty much started with American involvement, but it was not until Pearl Harbor that the USA could finally - publicly - commit its entire arsenal. But regardless, you would have found a way to join the war. Japan just did you a favour.