WW2 was America's fight. If Hitler had been able to defeat the UK and the USSR, that would be a major world hegemon capable of challenging the US on its own turf.
No, it wasn't. Also fyi people who say "obviously" are admitting they know they're full of shit and can't back up their claims, that's why they say "obviously" to excuse themselves from having to consider it.
The US was not a "hegemon" before WW2, it was forced to become one as a result of WW2 because you euros couldn't behave and just make money like a good American. The US didn't give a shit if Hitler conquered Europe. Hitler posed no threat the the United States, hence why the American public was isolationist and would never have joined WW2 but for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
'Scuse me, remind me who refused to ratify the Anglo-American guarantees for French security?
I don't know what you're talking about. This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guarantee_(proposed) Yeah, the United States didn't agree to guarantee France, didn't owe France anything, and even if the US guaranteed France, Hitler would not have given the slightest shit. AND any guarantee would have been nullified by the fact that FRANCE was the aggressor, not Germany. Germany only invaded Poland. The UK and France DOWd Germany and it had no choice but to defend itself. Security guarantees never hold when the protected country starts the war.
You claim to wish that the US wasn't some sort of "hegemon" or "imperial power" but when that was unarguably true before WW2, and the US literally stayed out of everything and euros cluster fucked it, you still try to find fault with the US. It's like you have TDS, but against the US, so ADS.
No, it wasn't. Also fyi people who say "obviously" are admitting they know they're full of shit and can't back up their claims, that's why they say "obviously" to excuse themselves from having to consider it.
You claim to be a realist, but you are obviously unaware of the basic tenets of realism, which is that a country getting overmighty leads to a balancing coalition, and that a regional hegemon will try to prevent a hegemon from arising in another region for fear of what this will do to its own position.
because you euros couldn't behave
I'm not a euro, my parents were immigrants.
The US didn't give a shit if Hitler conquered Europe. Hitler posed no threat the the United States
This is beyond absurd. Obviously, a Hitler controlling Calais to Vladivostok would be the greatest power the world has ever known, and it would be a threat to the US and the entire world. Hell, a much smaller USSR was considered a major threat to the US.
Roosevelt's actions demonstrate that this was seen in the US as well: lend-lease for the UK, the Greer incident, and the determination that the survival of the USSR as vital to US national security.
And that was smart! I'm not even criticizing the US for it, like your dumb ass apparently thinks I am. I'm always arguing against people who say that FDR was a 'commie' or whatever, or that it was a mistake from the US POV to help the USSR. It was quite smart. The aid to the UK was just not based on moral considerations as you claimed.
Germany only invaded Poland. The UK and France DOWd Germany and it had no choice but to defend itself. Security guarantees never hold when the protected country starts the war.
And the UK and France were operating under the guarantees that they had provided to Poland, which they did in order to prevent Germany from becoming a European hegemon.
You claim to wish that the US wasn't some sort of "hegemon" or "imperial power" but when that was unarguably true before WW2, and the US literally stayed out of everything and euros cluster fucked it, you still try to find fault with the US. It's like you have TDS, but against the US, so ADS.
Only thing I'm saying is that the US didn't do anything out of any moral consideration, like you claimed. That's all. Why does that get you so cross? And you claim to be a realist!
The USSR was only a threat because the US changed to becoming internationalist as a result of WW2.
We were selling oil to the Japanese war machine while they were genociding Chinese, for years and years until the Japs threatened Singapore. We really didn't give a shit about the Nazis. The Nazis would have been happy to trade with the US.
No, it wasn't. Also fyi people who say "obviously" are admitting they know they're full of shit and can't back up their claims, that's why they say "obviously" to excuse themselves from having to consider it.
The US was not a "hegemon" before WW2, it was forced to become one as a result of WW2 because you euros couldn't behave and just make money like a good American. The US didn't give a shit if Hitler conquered Europe. Hitler posed no threat the the United States, hence why the American public was isolationist and would never have joined WW2 but for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I don't know what you're talking about. This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guarantee_(proposed) Yeah, the United States didn't agree to guarantee France, didn't owe France anything, and even if the US guaranteed France, Hitler would not have given the slightest shit. AND any guarantee would have been nullified by the fact that FRANCE was the aggressor, not Germany. Germany only invaded Poland. The UK and France DOWd Germany and it had no choice but to defend itself. Security guarantees never hold when the protected country starts the war.
You claim to wish that the US wasn't some sort of "hegemon" or "imperial power" but when that was unarguably true before WW2, and the US literally stayed out of everything and euros cluster fucked it, you still try to find fault with the US. It's like you have TDS, but against the US, so ADS.
You claim to be a realist, but you are obviously unaware of the basic tenets of realism, which is that a country getting overmighty leads to a balancing coalition, and that a regional hegemon will try to prevent a hegemon from arising in another region for fear of what this will do to its own position.
I'm not a euro, my parents were immigrants.
This is beyond absurd. Obviously, a Hitler controlling Calais to Vladivostok would be the greatest power the world has ever known, and it would be a threat to the US and the entire world. Hell, a much smaller USSR was considered a major threat to the US.
Roosevelt's actions demonstrate that this was seen in the US as well: lend-lease for the UK, the Greer incident, and the determination that the survival of the USSR as vital to US national security.
And that was smart! I'm not even criticizing the US for it, like your dumb ass apparently thinks I am. I'm always arguing against people who say that FDR was a 'commie' or whatever, or that it was a mistake from the US POV to help the USSR. It was quite smart. The aid to the UK was just not based on moral considerations as you claimed.
And the UK and France were operating under the guarantees that they had provided to Poland, which they did in order to prevent Germany from becoming a European hegemon.
Only thing I'm saying is that the US didn't do anything out of any moral consideration, like you claimed. That's all. Why does that get you so cross? And you claim to be a realist!
The USSR was only a threat because the US changed to becoming internationalist as a result of WW2.
We were selling oil to the Japanese war machine while they were genociding Chinese, for years and years until the Japs threatened Singapore. We really didn't give a shit about the Nazis. The Nazis would have been happy to trade with the US.