This rule has held true my entire life so far, and has probably been true since the 1940s.
Although i definitely know people who are pro-Palestine and pro-Ukraine and its like uhmmmm lol
This rule has held true my entire life so far, and has probably been true since the 1940s.
Although i definitely know people who are pro-Palestine and pro-Ukraine and its like uhmmmm lol
The obvious answer you’ll get is WWII but I’m skeptical. US interests supported Hitler and Mussolini. Before, during, and after the war. It’s enlisted troops might have been a force for good. But on the whole, the question of the benevolence of US involvement is—well, I’m unconvinced.
US involved themselves once it became clear the Soviets would win. Why? Because opening a second front enabled them to occupy half of europe and sit around the table in Berlin that determines what happens after the war.
It functions as a deterrent to the Soviets. It is the reason the Soviets stopped at Berlin. Had there been no second front? The Soviets would have occupied it all. All of Europe would be red.
the germans declared war on the US when they thought they were about to beat the soviets? who keeps promulgating this backwards narrative?
how do you explain US aid and cooperation with the Soviets if their real goal was simply undermining them? why did the soviets stress the need for a second front? all of europe would be red, if there was no question of Soviet victory. why give the neofascists a beachhead? why browbeat them about hot long its taking them to make a beachhead?
American lend lease equipment didn’t start arriving until the Battle of Moscow had already started and none of it was put into deployment until it was over. The Germans had lost the war at this point.
I did not say the US goal was simply undermining the Soviets. I said that the goal of their decision to put boots on the ground was so that they took territory and would therefore be a presence against the Soviets occupying the whole of europe.
The soviets wanted a second front, it was good for ending the war faster, it was good for reducing the number of lives lost in the war. It was not good for communism, the goal was simply defeating the fascists, communism was secondary at the time, these are lives and the Soviets cared about them.
the allies could not say with any confidence that the nazis were broken by Moscow. some nazis knew but were too delusional or afraid to admit it i imagine. using a hindsight fairly disputed post-op point for when the nazis “lost” to prove lend lease wasn’t helpful or intended to help lacks historical perspective. imagine telling a soviet they’d won the war in january 1942. lmao
but you still haven’t explained why the US aided the soviets. okay we don’t want the Soviets liberating Europe… why’d they give them resources? could they not slow the advance of the Red Menace across the continent by turning off the tap?
at the core of this is a refusal to reconcile capitalist interests possibly overlying an antifascist project. some US firms were invested in nazi germany. they made out with US government reimbursment for damages, and keeping wartime profits. that section of capital did not make it so the US interest in defeating the nazis was not economical. on the contrary, it was a retread of WW1, a defence of investments and loans to France & the UK, a defence of their colonies, and by the end an appropriation of their capital and imperial interests. the Nazis were an obstacle to the majority of US capital expansion prospects. US favor to and shipping of war materiel to the UK prior to Barbarossa conclusively indicate this reality, separate from a enthusiasm members of the US bourgeoisie and government may have possessed for nazi snuffling of communists—the nazis still had to go, as competitiors in the imperial game.
If you were a high ranking SS member you would be real happy for US involvement but I am not sure I trust their opinion.
All the genocide we did with the money we got from selling arms to Europe also is a mark against.
deleted by creator