this post was submitted on 26 May 2026
913 points (99.0% liked)
Brand New Sentence
182 readers
107 users here now
Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.
- Be cool to each other.
- Post title must be the sentence.
- Link for context if possible.
- Tag NSFW where applicable.
I'm looking for another mod, someone chill. DM me if you're interested.
founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They let the germs and Soviets weaken themselves, they saw both as their enemies.
Again, only after the battle of Stalingrad decided the future outcome in 1943 did they enter the European theater.
Those are 2 facts and historically accurate.
Yes the Soviets were glad the west did a (small) part against the nazis.
But that only was a temporary marriage of convenience.
And again, they only went in to grab a piece of the loot as the opportunistic vultures they are so the Soviets wouldn't get it.
Which they still could if they wanted to, and chase the combined western 'allies' out too if they decided to continue the war.
I'm certain they don't teach that in most US schools but they do at West Point military academy BTW, in case you want to call that ahistorical again.
The US deserves to be shit on for all the awful things they do and did.
If you're looking for a win for your country, WW2 is not it.
As I said, we Europeans became US vassals, same as the Japanese.
So no, they were not the good guys despite the liberator heroes propaganda BS.
Before D-Day, the US prioritized Europe before Japan, and it fought the Germans in North Africa and in naval battles, while providing material support to the Soviet war effort.
100% agree. It does not, however, deserve to be shit on for killing fascists 80 years ago.
I am absolutely not "looking for a win for my country" I am simply not willing to change historical facts just to make the US look worse than it already is, because I don't need to.
Nobody said anything about "good guys."
There's plenty of bullshit propaganda regarding the historical narrative, but that doesn't mean that this knee-jerk criticism is correct. Like when you've reached the point of "The US is bad because it provoked Imperial Japan" I think you need to seriously consider whether you're overcorrecting.
North Africa was largely a British effort (not to mention also late in the war, AFTER Stalingrad)
The actual fighting in Europe except for some bombing runs was the invasion of Sicily. Also 1943.
I am not overcorrecting, just correcting.
I have also for a long time overestimated their efforts (and allies in general) when the Soviets eliminated 85% of nazis, most of their troops were on the eastern front.
Al this caused by propaganda and revisionism.
The times and places of battles are correct, they are not up for discussion.
How you interpret them and their weight is another thing.
But more important than their effort was the realization of their motives.
That was the shocking thing for me, also Europe's part and the heavy downplaying of collaboration and whitewashing afterwards.
Maybe we should make a difference here between the troops and government also when talking about the US actions.
I believe that nearly all the soldiers should be respected for the effort in fighting fascists.
The government is another thing.
You may see it differently but we can have our own opinions.
That's all I have to say I guess, unless you have objections ;)
Fair enough. I just think that our line should be slightly more reserved. Its enough to point out that the US was motivated primarily by self-interest and that the Soviets made the greatest contribution to the war effort (although I generally find that sort of "glory hounding" distasteful regardless of who's doing it, it is good to set the record straight). Those two things have very firm backing, and I don't think there's any narrative that should require going further than that. Imo, that only weakens otherwise solid criticism by getting into more disputable territory and gives fuel to accusations that we're just knee-jerk anti-American regardless of anything it does or doesn't do.
Whether it would have been possible (or strategically advisable) to do D-Day sooner is not a concrete fact. The US needed time to mobilize. If you want to present some form of hard evidence or academic work that proves otherwise, be my guest. But until then, I think your argument rests on shaky ground and again I just don't see any reason to push that far.
What exactly is the harm in just saying, "Yes, the US stumbled into doing something good one time, and it's been exaggerating about that for the past 80 years and using it to justify themselves while conducting imperialistic campaigns of terror and brutality ever since?" Do we really need that one good thing to actually be bad? Why?