Comment on Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 2 weeks agoThat explains the UK and France since France and the United Kingdom were the two dominant players in world affairs and in League of Nations affairs, and usually were in agreement.
However, the US was not part of the League of Nations, had not been attacked, had adopted an isolationist approach to foreign policy between WW1 and WW2 and had already fought in one European war. There was no UN, no NATO, no mutual defense agreements like exist today because WW2 was the catalyst for many of those things.
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” – attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yes. We know why the US didn’t join initially. I was answering why they should have done.
LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
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.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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?
LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
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.