250
Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
250 points (97.3% liked)
United Kingdom
4933 readers
140 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, he's not. Your quote is from a radio broadcast on September 3, 1939 where Chamberlain was speaking about England and France declaring war.
Note, this is also the same Chamberlain who made a speech in 1938 after signing the Munich agreement where he said, “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time….”; The speech would later seal Chamberlain’s reputation as the chief architect of appeasement..
What I'm gathering is that everyone here seems to think the US had some moral obligation to declare war earlier, which is easy to say in retrospect but history doesn't support that idea when viewed in situ.
The US should have been part of the League of Nations. It was cowardly not to have been.
If it were moral for England and France to enter into war, then why would it not moral for the US?
Maybe they should, Wilson certainly wanted
them to. Whether it was "cowardly" is entirely opinion based.
The US did not join the League of Nations primarily due to strong opposition within the Senate and a prevailing isolationist sentiment in the country. Concerns about the League's potential impact on US sovereignty and the entangling of the US in foreign conflicts, particularly in Europe, fueled this opposition.
Looking back at it now or in 1939? I'm not arguing morality because that's the problem. Knowing what the world knows today it's easy to say it was moral to declare war, but if the Allies were looking for help at the start of the war, why did they not share information about the concentration camps to spur others into action? Maybe because nobody knew in the beginning?
Taking a 1939 perspective? I would say that if the prevailing sentiment among Americans was isolationism, is it not moral for the elected representatives to work in the interests of their constituency.
We're talking about people in a country half a world away, that is only a few years removed from the Great Depression, with the memory of fighting another war in Europe fresh in their memories.
Remember, in the 1930s people in the US had virtually no televisions or 24/7 tv news, only about 1/3 of homes had telephones. The world is very different now than it was 90 years ago.
Your opinion might be that the US "sat and watched for 820 days" but that's rubbish. It's not supported by the facts or history.
An American could have the opinion that WWII occurred because Neville Chamberlain, the UK, France and the rest of the League failed to appropriately address the threat prior to 1939. Guess what? The facts and history don't bear that out either.
The original question was should the US have entered in 1939. That word implies a moral perspective.
The US was isolationist, but should it have been. Should any country be? (Draw your own historical parallels to today).
America shouldn't be the world police, but it should help resource a world police force. And to be fair, the US did provide a huge amount of non military resources to Europe throughout WWII.
Should verb
I can assure you, since it was my question, that should was used in reference to obligation or duty. So while it can be referencing correctness (morality), it wasn't.
Assuming your asking about correctness then that would depend on the person answering's opinion and when they are answering from. Again, it is easy to say now, with access to all the information post-event but, clearly, in 1939 the reigning belief of the US population seems to have been "no".
Here we agree, mostly. America also contributed 407,316 lives of its soldiers and 671,278 injuries to others.
I myself wonder if American hegemony would exist today if they had entered the war in 1939.
A large part of both the rise of America as a world power and world police role came about initially because of the war.
Between a form of legal profiteering in lend/lease, the huge industry boom during and post-war and the fact that Europe faced so much destruction and needed a lot of rebuilding, America's rise came about. Then, rather quickly after I'd say, the perversion of their role began into what it is today.
In my opinion, America should have worked to withdraw over time and let their allies take over the "policing" role in their areas of concern, or actually allow NATO to work as intended.
Edit: On a separate note, I appreciate the civil discourse and conversation. I am well aware of the faults America has, they are many.