86 points

Never on the right side of history.

permalink
report
reply
64 points

We were that one time, and we’ve been milking it ever since.

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points

WW2, we only joined because Japan attacked. Otherwise, there were elements of the US population that were cheering for Hitler.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

We also nuked two cities, for reasons much less honorable or necessary than the one we are told.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

The US has never opposed fascism - Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were colonialist rivals threatening US hegemony and influence and nothing more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

People don’t realize that the US used to see fascism as a sort of white utopia. It was really popular up until WW2 when they hard turned on it. Kind of like what happened with communism, actually. It was seen as a revolutionary form of democracy up until the cold war, now people only know it for all the propaganda that came out of the era. (most of which was flat out lies made up on the spot by actual nazis)

It’s a lot of the reason why the modern day liberal is so staunchly both-sides when it comes to anything geopolitics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Prior to Pearl Harbour, the US funded the Japanese as the Japanese committed countless war crimes and genocide in China.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Well that and the fact that there was a huge Irish-American population that was hostile towards the UK in ways that I think a lot of younger people and non-historians have really lost sight of because it’s not really a thing anymore. The idea of taking sides with the British Empire was a very tough pill for a lot of Irish-Americans, most of whom, unlike today, still had direct connections to Ireland. The famine was no longer really in living memory, but the children of the famine survivors were definitely still alive and influential and they absolutely despised the British for understandable reasons.

History is always way more complex and nuanced than some half-baked one-liner trope on social media.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

Yeah, but look how it started. You need to look at the WW1, when both USA and Japan were among the victors and had the same area in their expansion view. For example Lenin predicted in 1918 that the Pacific war will eventually happen, though it ultimately started later than he thought because invasion of China occupied Japan attention.

Interestingly enough for the same reason US-Japan war could be avoided for more time, but it’s actually the US who decided the time, note how they established the embargo on Japan in late june to 1st august 1941, in the exact moment when Japanese military was occupied, their nazi ally pour all effort into invading USSR and Japan even refused to join that war basically breaking that alliance. Said embargo was absolutely devastating for Japan, it would force them to grind their entire empire to sudden halt in half year, so they have a choice between collapse and war on USA. The only thing US was mistaken about was how competent the Japanese military actually was (not weird considering the racism in US) which led to their their initial string of victories in 1942.

So yeah, that was the one time US was on the correct side of history but the motivation was to gobble up the Pacific for their empire, and they pushed up pretty cold bloodedly for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points
*

In ww2 the Russians did most of he dirty work anyway. When the USA joined the war it was already clear the axis had lost.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Hollywood war reenactments are a psyop.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

When the USA joined the war it was already clear the axis had lost.

While I agree that that it was the Soviet and Chinese people that absorbed the greatest part of the Axis’ powers warmaking ability (which western historians are apt to ignore), it’s not true that the Axis had already lost the war by 1941. It’s accurate to say that the US joined the war at a moment when the Axis forces had hopelessly overstretched themselves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Typical oversimplified tripe. Soviet bodies played a huge role, but US and British mechanized force projection, naval power and industrial capacity were at least as important.

It’s also just bullshit that the Axis had already lost. That’s the worst kind of historical revisionism. It might be obvious to us looking back, but it wasn’t even remotely obvious to anyone alive then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points
*

Lol no it wasn’t clear. And you’re forgetting about the entire Pacific.

Russians trying to rewrite history, forgetting who supplied half their army while also joining a war against their enemy on another front (at great cost to western lives), overall saving lives as the Germans had to divert resources and ending the war in Europe sooner.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

@davel

We were that one time, and we’ve been milking it ever since.

Only until 2006 which is when the UK finally managed to pay the US back the “lend lease” debt it racked up in WWII

Wonder how long it will take for Ukraine to pay back theirs, they’re on a Lend Lease from the US right now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

You & I are the only people who seem to know this. Everyone else is busy arguing whether we can “afford” to give Ukraine “free stuff”, when in reality none of it is free, and whatever few Ukrainians are left alive after this war will be paying onerous debt for generations. They’re already auctioning off many public assets to mostly foreign buyers at fire sale prices, up to and including seaports.

permalink
report
parent
reply
72 points

Imperial America is a death cult.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

…In the fields, bodies burning as the war machine keeps turning…

permalink
report
parent
reply
59 points

What’s particularly notable is that US vetoed the resolution that Russia put out on the basis that it did not condemn Hamas. However, US also vetoed subsequent resolution by Brazil that did condemn Hamas without giving a coherent explanation for the second veto. The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn here is that US regime wants people to suffer and die. US is intentionally enabling a genocide in Gaza against the will of the rest of the world.

To sum up, fuck the US regime.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

without giving a coherent explanation for the second veto

They said that they vetoed because “Brazil didn’t say that Israel has a right of self-defense”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

That’s not a coherent explanation given that the purpose of the resolution is to have a ceasefire as in both sides ceasing hostilities.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

It doesn’t even make any sense period. States are the ones that delineate “rights.” A sovereign state would never need to affirm its “rights” or have them affirmed, unless their sovereignty was conditional.

So, all of this is a show the international (imperial) community plays to endorse the genocide. The US gives the occupier of Palestine the “right” to defend itself from blowback and demands support from its other vassals and victims to solidify the sovereignty of an illegitimate project through their recognition as legitimate players. Yet this seemingly challenges the sovereignty of the project, almost as if it is just a US colony in need of permission…

The US would never - maybe not even rhetorically - rely on rights granted to it by the international community to assert its imperial sovereignty. The society of states is such a fucking joke.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I mean, that’s part of the given justification for the veto, but it doesn’t take a PhD in international relations to figure out that the real reason is obviously that both the US and Israel --and a number of other relevant players-- are currently knee-deep in operations and negotiations and that a cease fire, by changing the dynamic on the ground, would seriously screw those efforts.

My guess is that Israel has a plan that it wants to execute before implementing any cease-fire, and that the US is on-board with it for now.

Unlike most social media users, I don’t feel like I know enough to take a position on whether this veto is morally justifiable or not. On its face it seems kind of lame, but I can easily think of reasons why it might actually be entirely justified. We will see.

permalink
report
parent
reply

My guess is that Israel has a plan that it wants to execute before implementing any cease-fire, and that the US is on-board with it for now.

Yeah, it’s called “genocide”

permalink
report
parent
reply

The UN is such a fucking joke

permalink
report
reply

The UN should use resolution 377A and define a plan of action without the US. Give them a taste of their own poison.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Whatever that is on paper, in reality it represents the overthrow of the UN

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

That was one I didn’t know about before. Someone in the UN, please make this happen. Maybe if China brought it to the general assembly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

The UNS is such a fucking joke

Fixed that for you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

War is big business…

permalink
report
reply
-8 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 4.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 126K

    Comments