About
An alliance among all who oppose Donald Trump's actions, positions, cabinet, supporters, policies, or motives. This alliance includes anyone from the left or the right; anyone from any religion or lack thereof; anyone from any country or state; any man, woman or child.
Rules
-No pro-Trump posts or comments
-No off topic posts
-Be civil
-No trolling
-Follow Lemmy terms of service
Social Media
Other Communities
!desantisthreatensusa@lemmy.world
a million pieces/segments sneering at hasan piker and the co-chair of the DSA, meanwhile a republican congressional candidate in upstate new york named peter oberacker is the grandson of an actual nazi germany soldier and his former staffer was part of the 'i love hitler' young GOP group chat
I feel the same way when I see people sucking Allied WW2 dick. There were no good guys in WW2, just a few imperialist powers fighting over who gets to take advantage of the world's resources.
If you get upset reading this, read about what the British were doing to Indians in India at the time and what the Americans were doing to "Indians" in the US forever. Still not convinced? How about what that generation of US veterans voted for in the years returning from the war? There is no moral high ground to claim, so I wish the same energy directed at the idiot who posted the original "I salute all who served" message was directed at all war propaganda.
While I agree there’s no moral high ground, and Britain was always a terrible empire daddy, and the scramble for Africa was wrong… there was very clearly a difference in approach.
But but.. Western country... fascists! They've always been fascists!! I'm morally superior to EVERYONE!! - .ml user in a nutshell
Please do explain the differences in approach between the Nazis and the British and American governments when it comes to colonization and the persecution of undesirables.
The only real differences are of degree, and since that was pretty much a result of staring down the business end of the losing side of a war, it's easy for me to imagine us acting similarly. For instance, had Japan invaded the contiguous US and were approaching our internment camps and Indian reservations, the decision to convert them to kill camps seems like something we would have done.
You’ve delved way too far into whataboutism. I can’t argue what should or could have happened in the WW2 era. No one is alive from that time to have an educated discussion about it. It’s a question for a historian, which I am not.
Your moral compass is broken.
Haha no shit, Sherlock. I'm an American combat veteran who served during the Global War on Terror. I am morally shattered. I belong in the Hague, but people keep thanking me for my service.
But at least I'm aware enough to know there has never been a "good" war, and being on the side of a genociding force isn't "good" even if the other side is also genociding bastards.
So you don't think getting rid of the nazis and responding to pearl harbor were wrong? I'm fascinated by your viewpoint. At what point can you respond to an attack and fight back?
It sounds like you have personal issues that go well beyond your military service. PTSD?
lol yeah we were just minding our own business, and then Pearl Harbor happened. Jesus I might have issues, but at least I'm not still fooled by decades-old propaganda.
So Poland provoked Nazi Germany? We forced Japan to attack our naval base? Japan HAD to attack China. England shouldn't have fought back? Wow
I think you've been fooling yourself.
I only said one of those things. Pearl Harbor was a result of US sanctions on Japan. It wasn't out of nowhere, as you claimed earlier.
oh I didn't realize what instance you were from, makes sense now.
I will agree that nation-states can't be "good guys" by definition. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't support those who were the less bad guys, or "on the right side of history" so to say, especially the common proletarian soldiers on the ground.
Otherwise you end up with "well, Iranian government represses women therefore it's OK to bomb the country into the stone age".
I don't understand your logic. I'm saying that the US should not have been involved in a European war between essentially two morally and ethically bankrupt sides (and how bragging about being on one side over the other is literally retarted thinking). How do you extend that logic to being okay with bombing Iran?
Because the sides (which, to be clear, were mostly USSR vs nazi germany) were clearly not equally "morally and ethically bankrupt"?
USSR, while very far away from perfect as I will be the first to admit, was a socialist nation struggling to build an equitable, just, and advanced society for all working people, first inside its borders then worldwide.
Germany was a bunch of rich capitalists pushing nazi propaganda on its population, aiming to turn the entire European continent into an ethostate, enslave all slavs and kill all jews, with reactionary&inhumane views about gender, sexuality, disability, and a thousand other topics.
If you think that those two sides are somehow "the same" and thus it's somehow OK if Germany won that war, why would USA vs Iran be different?
lol you think we joined the Allies because of Russia, and not the UK, which we had been selling war supplies to for years prior to us joining? Russia, the country we started fighting against before the Third Reich had even collapsed?
You are right that the majority of the conflict was between Germany and Russia, but you have eluded my point about why the US joined the fight. FDR was not salivating at the prospect of entering WWII to help Stalin. He was interested in the economic benefits.
I assume the soviets were the most morally just out of all the major WW2 players bc I know the least about their history, and what I do know has a veneer of anti russia propaganda. Had we intervened on their behalf out of a moral obligation, I can see how you got to the Iran thing- that was my excuse for supporting and fighting in wars against Iraq and Afghanistan- obvious mistakes at the time and even clearer with a little hindsight. But during WW2 we helped England, even if we were helping Russia, and England in the 1940s was objectively abhorrent.
It doesn't really matter why someone joined one side of the war over another, the thing that matters is that they did. In this harsh world, you will need to choose the "lesser of two evils" all the time, and in the case of WW2 it's patently obvious which side is the lesser of two evils. USSR was not only a more progressive and less awful country overall but also it was defending itself from an existential threat. Fighting on its side, even for the wrong reasons, is the right thing to do.
None of this applies to any other war the US was involved in post-WW2. I can understand that you can look at the string of genocide and war crimes and generally awful shit and apply the same lens to WW2, but it is just not the case then. US soldiers were fighting an opponent which was by all accounts about as awful as US itself, for the first and last time in history.
The lesser of two evils is still evil, and we did not have to choose a side. That same false choice is why the US has been involved in so many quagmires around the world over the last 80 years.
Yes fuck the allies, they should've just stayed out of it.
Had we adopted that position in WW1, there would not have been a WW2, a Third Reich, a holocaust, or a genociding Israel. The US would not have experimented with chemical and biological warfare in Korea because Operation Paperclip would not have happened. Vietnam would have gone differently even if we still invaded because we would not have had shit like Agent Orange to poison generations of people. So yeah, maybe we should adopt a "just stay out of it" approach to our foreign policy.