this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
395 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3550 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aidan 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

to quote an old reddit comment:

There is no doubt that the US was going to enter the war before Pearl Harbor. Not only was American aid to the Allies massive (and increasing month by month), but the U.S. was already effectively at war with Germany - by mid-1941 American ships were escorting British convoys with orders to shoot German ships/aircraft on sight. There's a reason Hitler declared war on the US when he had no obligation to. Germany and the US were already in direct conflict.

More to the point, collaborative war planning had been going on long before Pearl Harbor. [The ABC-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93British_Staff_Conference_(ABC%E2%80%931)) Conference for example outlined the broad strokes of Allied strategy for the rest of the war.

There is no reasonable scenario where the US would not have entered the war.

[–] givesomefucks 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

...

Yes, there were plans for if we joined before we joined.

Like, that's what a functional government does, plan things in case they happen.

Only planning for things you know will happen is absolute insanity.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/great-debate

While it did cross into the majority of Americans (68%) thinking we should join the Allies, it was due to the belief Germany wouldn't stop with Europe.

Interventionists believed the United States did have good reasons to get involved in World War II, particularly in Europe. The democracies of Western Europe, they argued, were a critical line of defense against Hitler’s fast-growing strength. If no European power remained as a check against Nazi Germany, the United States could become isolated in a world where the seas and a significant amount of territory and resources were controlled by a single powerful dictator. It would be, as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it, like “living at the point of a gun,” and the buffer provided by the Pacific and Atlantic would be useless.

Pearl Harbor settled the debate on if America would be left alone.

It wasn't for "various reasons".

[–] aidan 0 points 4 months ago

... Yes for average Americans, yes. Again, I'm talking about FDR and other political leaders

[–] aidan 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

... Yes for average Americans, yes. Again, I'm talking about FDR and other political leaders

[–] givesomefucks 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I didn't expect you to read the link, that's why I quoted part of it...

But I at least hoped you'd read that

If you refuse to read, there's no point in trying to help you understand anything.

[–] aidan 2 points 4 months ago

The quoted portion, from my perspective added nothing, but I might of misinterpreted it, so please explain