Preventing a power to rise that could challenge the US is the strategic imperative of the US.
Just like the UK doesn't want a unified power on the continent.
That explains both the US and UK's actions in WW2 on a realpolitik level.
Realpolitik would have been something like kick the Russians when they're down. In fact, the US allowed a power to rise out of WW2 that did challenge the US. And I think it did so because of sympathy within the US to the Bolsheviks.
Imagine for a moment that the US 'kicked the Russians when they were down'. Meaning, aid the Germans to extend their dominion to the Urals.
Germany controlled Europe from France, through Norway, Switzerland, Greece, and was allied with Italy, Spain, Hungary and Romania. Basically, the entire post World War II 'NATO alliance' sans the UK.
This is formidable power. Now add to that the industrial capacity and agricultural riches that were poorly exploited by communism and collectivizaton. Add to that the power of Japan and how it was (at that moment flailing at) conquering China and planning to take European colonies in Asia.
Just put the hypothetical Nazi victory in Russia vs. the postwar USSR and its satellites on a map. I'm not sure how you think that would have been less of a threat to US hegemony. Add to that: the actually rich and industrialized parts of Europe were controlled by Germany, and they did not have a self-defeating economic system (or at least less of one) to implode.
What-ifs are hard, but you can't deny that US policy failed to prevent a threat from emerging that challenged the US. So they didn't win.
They also gave Europe up to Communism. The US was never at risk of being occupied. I think, honestly, they were just tired of war after beating the Germans, and especially after beating the Japanese, and I don't blame them for that.
That is the only explanation for the US and UK's actions. The only role that Nazi politics played was that it was more expansionistic and thus triggered the balancing coalition that ultimately ended it.
That is pretty monstrous, though a gaffe in the Kinsey sense of accidentally telling the truth.
"kill as many as possible" seems to be the US regime line in many places, including Ukraine-Russia.
Preventing a power to rise that could challenge the US is the strategic imperative of the US. Just like the UK doesn't want a unified power on the continent.
That explains both the US and UK's actions in WW2 on a realpolitik level.
Realpolitik would have been something like kick the Russians when they're down. In fact, the US allowed a power to rise out of WW2 that did challenge the US. And I think it did so because of sympathy within the US to the Bolsheviks.
Imagine for a moment that the US 'kicked the Russians when they were down'. Meaning, aid the Germans to extend their dominion to the Urals.
Germany controlled Europe from France, through Norway, Switzerland, Greece, and was allied with Italy, Spain, Hungary and Romania. Basically, the entire post World War II 'NATO alliance' sans the UK.
This is formidable power. Now add to that the industrial capacity and agricultural riches that were poorly exploited by communism and collectivizaton. Add to that the power of Japan and how it was (at that moment flailing at) conquering China and planning to take European colonies in Asia.
Just put the hypothetical Nazi victory in Russia vs. the postwar USSR and its satellites on a map. I'm not sure how you think that would have been less of a threat to US hegemony. Add to that: the actually rich and industrialized parts of Europe were controlled by Germany, and they did not have a self-defeating economic system (or at least less of one) to implode.
What-ifs are hard, but you can't deny that US policy failed to prevent a threat from emerging that challenged the US. So they didn't win.
They also gave Europe up to Communism. The US was never at risk of being occupied. I think, honestly, they were just tired of war after beating the Germans, and especially after beating the Japanese, and I don't blame them for that.
That is the only explanation for the US and UK's actions. The only role that Nazi politics played was that it was more expansionistic and thus triggered the balancing coalition that ultimately ended it.