Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What happened on this day in U.S. history reflects a much larger global pattern. One that still affects millions today.

Remember that the US didn't initially declare war on Japan nor Germany — they both declared war on us.

This was following the deaths of millions of innocent people under the horrors of the Nazi regime.

Yes, we later fired back an instrumental blow by storming Normandy.

But this was after Russia bore the heavier load of defending against Operation Barbarossa, which crippled the German army and starved their remaining fronts. It paved the way for us to celebrate our "victory". I'm NOT a fan of Russia but I give credit where credit is due. They bore the brunt of fighting with far less support than their sacrifice deserved.

Just as countless other nations and human beings faced atrocities alone, we stayed complacent and denied knowledge of the industrialized genocides that were occurring, and continued our trade deals with murderers.

We cannot take credit for D-day. It was not an act of righteous retribution; it was a decision we only made once there was no avoiding it.

And the biggest form of tragedy that today, the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbour represents, is our predisposition to nonintervention until the tables turn on us and threaten our interests.

This pattern isn't isolated to the 1940's. It reflects a larger American posture toward crises abroad. There are many historical and contemporary examples. Ones that may never turn around to threaten us, but which we nonetheless watch unfold with indifference while blood stains the face of the Earth.

THAT is what our attention should be drawn to. Not our heroic nature, which frankly isn't all that heroic — but our contentment with worldwide suffering and death and our eagerness to take credit once the suffering finally ends.
Top | New | Old
WestonTexan · 18-21, M
The problem is that intervention often goes awry. There's certainly a valid argument to be made that we should've gotten involved in WWII sooner, but should we have gotten involved in Vietnam or Iraq? Our intervention often makes things worse (this is not limited to the U.S., of course) and creates new crises (such as the formation of ISIS in the power vacuum we left in Iraq). It's not always easy to determine when intervention would actually be beneficial. I think there are some instances, such as genocide, when it should be more clear that action is needed (the lack of intervention from the international community in the Rwandan genocide being a recent example of this failure), but other times it's not at all clear. For example, Iraq represents a recent pattern of "get rid of the dictator, then figure things out later", but it's the second part of that that is never done properly, and we end up leaving a country in shambles, which often precipitates more violence.

Not to mention that through our own alliances, we enable and directly support certain instances of suffering (in Yemen, in Gaza).

Intervention has never been entirely humanitarian, no matter its humanitarian consequences. We intervene when it's of strategic benefit to us, and we often ignore the complexities and culture of the place we're intervening in, to our detriment and to theirs.
@WestonTexan We should intervene when genocide occurs.
WestonTexan · 18-21, M
@SinlessOnslaught I think that's a reasonable bar to set. I don't think it will happen, but it would be nice.
@WestonTexan The big difference between the Axis and Iraq or Vietnam is Germany had plans to invade the US once they were done with Europe. They were actively developing trans Atlantic long range bombers to do it.


But in Iraq and Vietnam and Afghanistan we were told "We have to fight them there so we don't fight them here." Well if anyone looked at that critically for 2 minutes even if they had the motivation (they didn't) it would have been logistically impossible for any of those countries to attack the US. But nobody in the US seems to look at any conflict with any level of critical thinking.
fanuc2013 · 51-55, F
I agree the Russians inflicted tremendous casualties and loss of material on the Germans, making "D-Day" a success, but, the US was in no condition, militarily, to mount D-Day any sooner. The pre-war standing army was way to small and under -equipped to mount a major war effort at first. It was the US industrial capability that equipped a large fighting force in a short period of time!
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@fanuc2013 Part of the problem with the WWII US military was that it was Jim Crow to the bone.
IronHamster · 56-60, M
@Diotrephes We have Democrats Woodrow Wilson and FDR to "thank" for resegregating the military.
IronHamster · 56-60, M
@SinlessOnslaught America is isolated and independent, so there's always an isolation movement. We barely got in in time. A few more years and Hitler would have been able to deliver nuclear warheads on V3 rockets launched from U-boats or jets.
Zonuss · 46-50, M
Pearl Harbor Day is a day we should all remember.
Because it was so big it still matters.
@Zonuss Okay, again, as I've stated in another thread, yes, you make a good point. But you're missing the main point.
Zonuss · 46-50, M
@SinlessOnslaught Or perhaps you cannot accept the answer that has been given.
@Zonuss Your response said that Pearl Harbour matters.

My original post said it too.
As horrible as Pearl Harbour was we now know some sort of event like this was predictable.

The US had effectively decided to cut off oil supplies to Japan. For a nation of islands with no domestic oil that is a death sentence.

Pearl Harbour was seen as the only way the Japanese had a hope in hell of challenging the USN.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
So wait a minute...

Are you in favor of a more interventionalist America? Or one less so?

Please clarify...
IronHamster · 56-60, M
@sarabee1995 The US military has the most capable blue water navy. After WWII we set up the global order, allowing ships to travel the globe without being harassed by pirates and privateers. This new ability to trade has been beneficial to poor people in third world nations globally and it's all because of our intervention.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@IronHamster All of this, I know. I've been in the US Navy for the last eight years.

I was asking @SinlessOnslaught what he meant in his post.
And I will just point out that Germany's involvement was just the result of mutual defense treaties and actually demonstrates why they are kind of a dumb idea.

 
Post Comment