United States Anti-Semitism in the United States (and elsewhere)

[Marduk]

The business interests and the righteingers basically wanted Hitler and Stalin to eat each-other.

Hope is the first step to disappointment.

To this number you can include early libertarians like Any Rand.

"these same groups are screaming that the United States has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Vietnam"

In fact that's quite a clear indication of "isolationism" being a tactical hat various groups put on to shield their own favored actors in geopolitics, and throw away when it comes to fucking up ones they don't like. Same story with modern isolationists.

And while I disagree on her views that America has profited nothing from the 2 world wars,

On the other hand there's also a bunch of interests who would have profited a lot from America not joining the world wars, and those were big supporters of isolationism.

she had a point, "isolationism" is a favorite term used by liberal/"progressive" globalist smear merchants and their coterie of special Interest groups.

Who gives a fuck, when the other side puts on the isolationist hat, the others use it.
If you think this will make me give a tiniest amount of sympathy to the coterie of special interests of "alternate globalists" you are greatly mistaken.

As to this lady Bowhatsit that advocated for Rand to join the pro-war bandwagon, well:



Wasn't that some hyper-racis movie or something...

Do i need to remind you how much i care about this sort of stuff and tell you exactly where you should stick cheeky bullshit like that when trying to join a discussion with me?

 

[Zachowon]

I remember the AFC in the 40 to 41. 18 months they existed.
They were isolationists. Commies, Facists, the like.
Who wanted the US to stay out if WW2

 

[Agent23]

Hope is the first step to disappointment.

The UK elite wanted the same.

Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that they were neither piecenicks nor supporters of Stalin or Hitler, but rather fairly shrewd business people, industrialists and other prominent, patriotic people that supported actual liberty.

Frankly, keeping the USSR on life support and getting Japan to open a second front would have been a better tactical solution to both the Soviet and Nazi problems.

Just had to let the war go on for longer and let all sides attrition themselves to a level where they would be easy to roll over.

"these same groups are screaming that the United States has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Vietnam"

In fact that's quite a clear indication of "isolationism" being a tactical hat various groups put on to shield their own favored actors in geopolitics, and throw away when it comes to fucking up ones they don't like. Same story with modern isolationists.

Replace "isolationism" with muh liberal hegemony/muh unipolar momnet/muh Russia/shining city on a hill/other dumb messianic gibberish and you get the other side.
the anti-messianic right is at least consistent.

On the other hand there's also a bunch of interests who would have profited a lot from America not joining the world wars, and those were big supporters of isolationism.

Whataboutism, ahoy.

Who gives a fuck, when the other side puts on the isolationist hat, the others use it.
If you think this will make me give a tiniest amount of sympathy to the coterie of special interests of "alternate globalists" you are greatly mistaken.

The anti-war stuff in the USA during the LBJ years came from some conservative and republican intellectuals, including George Kennan, the pro-war side, even by Johnson's own admission came from the China Lobby in the USA with its desire to spread muh christian values to all those illiterate Asian peasant heathens.

And probably some pressure came in in the form of money from his buddies from Brown & Root, aka modern-day Haliburton.

Do i need to remind you how much i care about this sort of stuff and tell you exactly where you should stick cheeky bullshit like that when trying to join a discussion with me?

Yet another in a long list of whataboutist hand waving pseudo-arguments.

Do I need to remind everyone that you tacitly admitted that you'd support a barrel of toxic waster for office, as long as it is against Russia and their allies?

This is the reason why you ree against America First/"Isolationism"/a lot of people on here that oppose your pet causes.

 

[King Arts]

Hope is the first step to disappointment.

"these same groups are screaming that the United States has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Vietnam"

In fact that's quite a clear indication of "isolationism" being a tactical hat various groups put on to shield their own favored actors in geopolitics, and throw away when it comes to fucking up ones they don't like. Same story with modern isolationists.

On the other hand there's also a bunch of interests who would have profited a lot from America not joining the world wars, and those were big supporters of isolationism.

Who gives a fuck, when the other side puts on the isolationist hat, the others use it.
If you think this will make me give a tiniest amount of sympathy to the coterie of special interests of "alternate globalists" you are greatly mistaken.

Do i need to remind you how much i care about this sort of stuff and tell you exactly where you should stick cheeky bullshit like that when trying to join a discussion with me?

I've said this long ago and no one disproved it. But it would have been possible for America to just let the Soviets and the Nazis fight each other. There is no reason why that tactic would "fail" It's just that internationalists refused to allow that to happen.

It would have been possible to just let the Soviets and Nazis fight each other and when one gets the upper hand America would provide support to the weaker. Obviously it would be a horrible loss of life and a humanitarian disaster that would be bad for Eastern Europe but from a geostrategic perspective that does not matter does it, America's position would be supreme without having to lose a single man.

 

[Zachowon]

I've said this long ago and no one disproved it. But it would have been possible for America to just let the Soviets and the Nazis fight each other. There is no reason why that tactic would "fail" It's just that internationalists refused to allow that to happen.

It would have been possible to just let the Soviets and Nazis fight each other and when one gets the upper hand America would provide support to the weaker. Obviously it would be a horrible loss of life and a humanitarian disaster that would be bad for Eastern Europe but from a geostrategic perspective that does not matter does it, America's position would be supreme without having to lose a single man.

The isolationists were fascists and commies who didn't want the US to get invovled because the fascists and Commies deserve Europe.

The US was going to get invovled in the war eventually.
It would have just been when we wernt prepared and were fighting a veteran force that now has the entire population of either Europe for the commies or Nazis.
Now...that also means we would of never had the nuke
The nazis may have, ir would have been further along and that would be the end of it.

 

[Agent23]

I've said this long ago and no one disproved it. But it would have been possible for America to just let the Soviets and the Nazis fight each other. There is no reason why that tactic would "fail" It's just that internationalists refused to allow that to happen.

It would have been possible to just let the Soviets and Nazis fight each other and when one gets the upper hand America would provide support to the weaker. Obviously it would be a horrible loss of life and a humanitarian disaster that would be bad for Eastern Europe but from a geostrategic perspective that does not matter does it, America's position would be supreme without having to lose a single man.

The USSR had better demographics, a larger military and more territory to relocate its industries to.

They also had very good intelligence on their enemies and a bunch of plants high up in the FDR administration.

It likely would have won eventually, but playing balance of power with it and the Germans could have yielded a situation where both sides were massively degraded.

The big problem with all this was that:
1) Hitler was a reetard.
2) The German deep state proved to be too cowardly and weak to get him to cooperate and follow a sane plan.

 

[Zachowon]

The Soviets only won because the US supplied so much to them
Multiple Soviet leaders of the time, including zhukov and Stalin both said that the US logsitcal support saved the USSR.

So...had we never sent them trucks they would have potentially never made it as far as they did.

 

[King Arts]

The isolationists were fascists and commies who didn't want the US to get invovled because the fascists and Commies deserve Europe.

The US was going to get invovled in the war eventually.
It would have just been when we wernt prepared and were fighting a veteran force that now has the entire population of either Europe for the commies or Nazis.
Now...that also means we would of never had the nuke
The nazis may have, ir would have been further along and that would be the end of it.

Are you really in the millitary? If so I weep that you fall for propaganda so easily and can't even comprehend basic divide and conquer strategy.

I said GIVE AID TO THE WEAKER SIDE. WHEN RUSSIA IS ON THE BACK FOOT HELP THE RUSSIANS AGAINST THE GERMANS, WHEN THE RUSSIANS GET STRONGER AND ARE PUSHING THE GERMANS BACK, STOP HELPING RUSSIA AND GIVE AID TO GERMANY UNTIL GERMANY PUSHES BACK AGAINST RUSSIA. RINSE AND REPEAT!

 

[Agent23]

The Soviets only won because the US supplied so much to them
Multiple Soviet leaders of the time, including zhukov and Stalin both said that the US logsitcal support saved the USSR.

So...had we never sent them trucks they would have potentially never made it as far as they did.

It would have been harder for them, but if you look at the actual stats about population, age, war production and resources you will see that they could have stalemated and severely bloodied the Germans.

And then you add to that the fact that the nazi idiots were trying to genocide all slavs and instead of being greeted as liberators they got partizan activity and persistent sabotage wherever they occupied ground.

Literally anyone could have run that war better than Hitler, perhaps even Biden.

Actually, hold that thought, need to post this in the AH section.

 

[Marduk]

I've said this long ago and no one disproved it. But it would have been possible for America to just let the Soviets and the Nazis fight each other. There is no reason why that tactic would "fail" It's just that internationalists refused to allow that to happen.

>internationalists
All sides were different types of internationalists. Isolationists were just useful idiots other sides wielded to argue against siccing the huge US economic power against their favored side.

It would have been possible to just let the Soviets and Nazis fight each other and when one gets the upper hand America would provide support to the weaker.

Either way someone would have won, and would have had no reason to not take whole of Europe then.
Enjoy Cold War on crack.

Obviously it would be a horrible loss of life and a humanitarian disaster that would be bad for Eastern Europe but from a geostrategic perspective that does not matter does it, America's position would be supreme without having to lose a single man.

And then you make even a small mistake in assessing who is weaker or getting the supplies through ocean gets too hard with no local support, enjoy Cold War on crack against Soviet or Nazi controlled Europe. With "strategists" like isolationists, who even needs enemies.
They don't give a fuck what's doable, feasible or the details of how it can or cannot be done, they just make up a convenient for their beliefs scenario and want everyone to expect all sides involved to play according to it.

 

[Zachowon]

Are you really in the millitary? If so I weep that you fall for propaganda so easily and can't even comprehend basic divide and conquer strategy.

No, I understand how logistics and politics work unlike you

I said GIVE AID TO THE WEAKER SIDE. WHEN RUSSIA IS ON THE BACK FOOT HELP THE RUSSIANS AGAINST THE GERMANS, WHEN THE RUSSIANS GET STRONGER AND ARE PUSHING THE GERMANS BACK, STOP HELPING RUSSIA AND GIVE AID TO GERMANY UNTIL GERMANY PUSHES BACK AGAINST RUSSIA. RINSE AND REPEAT!

Okay. How to you think the US would be able to get weapons to Russia or Germany without the other getting invovled.

and that isnt how wars work. Real life is a lot diffrent then in games. Maybe in HoI 4 coukd you do that.

In real life you would basically be leveraging your efforts to stop and start shipping lanes on two seperate sides of the world, discounting that the US already had allies invovled in the war. And that supporting Russia would open up shippung lanes to be targeted by Germany, and vice versa for supporting the ither side.

add in that logistic bases heabily depend on a variety of other aspects. Likely natural resources, time to transit.

The overall time from the supply lines to the fromt would be twn fold across Siberia and the Pacific then acriss the atlantic.

add in we would basically be feeding the nations that will want us dead as soon as they conquer Europe.

It would have been harder for them, but if you look at the actual stats about population, age, war production and resources you will see that they could have stalemated and severely bloodied the Germans.

It would have yeah, but had it ended in a stalemate it woukd have been separate

And then you add to that the fact that the nazi idiots were trying to genocide all slavs and instead of being greeted as liberators they got partizan activity and persistent sabotage wherever they occupied ground.

Well yeah, but the Waffan had its Slavic units so there is that.

Literally anyone could have run that war better than Hitler, perhaps even Biden.

Nah. Hitler did fine at first, it was losing thay drove him off decently well.
And losing trust in good officers

Actually, hold that thought, need to post this in the AH section.

Lol

 

[S'task]

I've said this long ago and no one disproved it. But it would have been possible for America to just let the Soviets and the Nazis fight each other. There is no reason why that tactic would "fail" It's just that internationalists refused to allow that to happen.

It would have been possible to just let the Soviets and Nazis fight each other and when one gets the upper hand America would provide support to the weaker. Obviously it would be a horrible loss of life and a humanitarian disaster that would be bad for Eastern Europe but from a geostrategic perspective that does not matter does it, America's position would be supreme without having to lose a single man.

A cute thought but one that ignores the actual realities of the politics involved.

Firstly, remember that it was not the US that declared war on Germany, rather, Germany declared war on the US in tandem with Japan. This means, immediately, that your "play both sides against each other" plan fails from the word "go". Now, could we not have given ass much lend-lease to the Soviets in order to let the Germans do more damage to them? Yes certainly, but there could not be a point in time where the US could switch sides and play them both against each other.

Now you might object we should have been nicer to Japan to prevent them from declaring war on the US. Many folks have their weird idea that somehow the US could have appeased Japan by waving a hand and keeping trade open? Beyond the fact that the Japanese were clearly an aggressive evil empire that no Christian nation should be trading with given the already committed atrocities before their attack on Pearl Harbor that warranted the US sanctions, there was also the simple fact that the US and Japan were pretty much GOING to have a war sometime in the mid-20th century simply due to the rise of Japanese nationalism and their desire to dominate the western Pacific. The US simply had to many colonies, protectorates, trade interests, and allies in the region to simply hand things over to Japan, as well as a vested interesting in maintaining a strong naval position in the central and western Pacific. While yes, theoretically the US could have remained neutral in a war in Europe in the mid-20th century, War in the Pacific was pretty close to inevitable as it was an old fashioned conflicting spheres of power conflict between two empires where one was going to end up dominating over the other, and once that blew up the Germans decided to get in on the action too, and before you object and say "the German declaration meant nothing, Germany couldn't do anything to threaten or harm the US" while you're to a degree correct about the mainland, they did have a significant submarine force that would be engaging in unrestricted operations against American shipping. Thus they could harm US citizens, property, and interests, albeit pinpricks, but also enough that it would turn popular sentiment against the Germans that would further prevent playing the Soviets and Germans against each other.

 

[Zachowon]

A cute thought but one that ignores the actual realities of the politics involved.

Firstly, remember that it was not the US that declared war on Germany, rather, Germany declared war on the US in tandem with Japan. This means, immediately, that your "play both sides against each other" plan fails from the word "go". Now, could we not have given ass much lend-lease to the Soviets in order to let the Germans do more damage to them? Yes certainly, but there could not be a point in time where the US could switch sides and play them both against each other.

Now you might object we should have been nicer to Japan to prevent them from declaring war on the US. Many folks have their weird idea that somehow the US could have appeased Japan by waving a hand and keeping trade open? Beyond the fact that the Japanese were clearly an aggressive evil empire that no Christian nation should be trading with given the already committed atrocities before their attack on Pearl Harbor that warranted the US sanctions, there was also the simple fact that the US and Japan were pretty much GOING to have a war sometime in the mid-20th century simply due to the rise of Japanese nationalism and their desire to dominate the western Pacific. The US simply had to many colonies, protectorates, trade interests, and allies in the region to simply hand things over to Japan, as well as a vested interesting in maintaining a strong naval position in the central and western Pacific. While yes, theoretically the US could have remained neutral in a war in Europe in the mid-20th century, War in the Pacific was pretty close to inevitable as it was an old fashioned conflicting spheres of power conflict between two empires where one was going to end up dominating over the other, and once that blew up the Germans decided to get in on the action too, and before you object and say "the German declaration meant nothing, Germany couldn't do anything to threaten or harm the US" while you're to a degree correct about the mainland, they did have a significant submarine force that would be engaging in unrestricted operations against American shipping. Thus they could harm US citizens, property, and interests, albeit pinpricks, but also enough that it would turn popular sentiment against the Germans that would further prevent playing the Soviets and Germans against each other.

Add in that the major party in control were supporters of Socialist ideals.
Then you look at the groups that wanted us to stay out of it. Like the before mentioned AFC, who were comprised OF commies and actual American Facists, who wanted us to remain neutral to let the Germans and Soviets take over Europe.

It seems to many focus on the aspect of the European theater and nit the worst theaterz the Pacific

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Beyond the fact that the Japanese were clearly an aggressive evil empire that no Christian nation should be trading with given the already committed atrocities before their attack on Pearl Harbor that warranted the US sanctions,

Don’t forget that the Third Reich outright balked at Japanese behaviour in China. I believe they even lodged complaints over Nanjing! And with good reason, as I believe that the Japanese slaughtered some twenty million Chinese civilians during their failed war of genocide and conquest.

I am more forgiving of the Japanese than most, but they’d been driven insane by totalitarianism during the Showa Era. They had to be stopped, and many millions lived because America stepped in, just as it was in Europe.

The Second Great War is really proof positive that isolationism isn’t always the right approach.

 

[Agent23]

A cute thought but one that ignores the actual realities of the politics involved.

Firstly, remember that it was not the US that declared war on Germany, rather, Germany declared war on the US in tandem with Japan. This means, immediately, that your "play both sides against each other" plan fails from the word "go". Now, could we not have given ass much lend-lease to the Soviets in order to let the Germans do more damage to them? Yes certainly, but there could not be a point in time where the US could switch sides and play them both against each other.

Only reason why the Germans did that is because they were hoping that they could get the Japanese to open a second front against the USSR.

Now you might object we should have been nicer to Japan to prevent them from declaring war on the US. Many folks have their weird idea that somehow the US could have appeased Japan by waving a hand and keeping trade open? Beyond the fact that the Japanese were clearly an aggressive evil empire that no Christian nation should be trading with given the already committed atrocities before their attack on Pearl Harbor that warranted the US sanctions, there was also the simple fact that the US and Japan were pretty much GOING to have a war sometime in the mid-20th century simply due to the rise of Japanese nationalism and their desire to dominate the western Pacific.

Look at things like the Taiping rebellion and Chinese and Asian history in general.

That area wasn't ever very humanitarian, and it is debatable if Japanese control over China would be worse than the Great Leap Forward, the one child policy and other traditional Chinese people management tactics.

If you look at the actual statistics the 2nd largest war-related loss of lives was not WWI or the 30 years war, it was a Chinese succession war between two dynasties done with 17th century tech.

And overall, their expansionism was a combination of mimicking western European colonialism, a desire to secure trade and resources and markets in the face of post-WWI protectionism and other economic malaise brought upon by the current situation.


Also, the Russo-Japanese war gave them, in particular their military a very huge head, which contributed to it becoming a massive pain in the ass.

A war in which the USA and Great Britain were supporting and egging on Japan.

The third is the Taiping rebellion, again China, again pre-machine gun.


The fight between the PRC and the KMT prior to the former winning also took a massive death toll.

The US simply had to many colonies, protectorates, trade interests, and allies in the region to simply hand things over to Japan, as well as a vested interesting in maintaining a strong naval position in the central and western Pacific. While yes, theoretically the US could have remained neutral in a war in Europe in the mid-20th century, War in the Pacific was pretty close to inevitable as it was an old fashioned conflicting spheres of power conflict between two empires where one was going to end up dominating over the other, and once that blew up the Germans decided to get in on the action too, and before you object and say "the German declaration meant nothing, Germany couldn't do anything to threaten or harm the US" while you're to a degree correct about the mainland, they did have a significant submarine force that would be engaging in unrestricted operations against American shipping. Thus they could harm US citizens, property, and interests, albeit pinpricks, but also enough that it would turn popular sentiment against the Germans that would further prevent playing the Soviets and Germans against each other.

Japan's southern expansionism was brought upon by their need to secure oil reserves and other commodities after FDR blocked their access to US markets and froze their assets in the USA under pressure from the China lobby while assisting the KMT at the same time, again due to pressure groups like said China lobby.

 

[Largo]

Only reason why the Germans did that is because they were hoping that they could get the Japanese to open a second front against the USSR.

So? The Germans declared war, ergo the point is moot. And really, it wouldn't have mattered anyways as long as we kept supplying the British. Sooner or later, we were going to sink a German submarine, a German submarine would have sunk a US ship, some accident would have happened and boom, there's your war.

And arguing that Japanese rule would have been better than the Communists is ridiculous because the Communists won because of the goddamn Japanese. If Imperial Japan had been run by Communists hellbent on spreading the world revolution, they could not have done any more for the Communists in China than what they actually did.

 

[ATP]

So? The Germans declared war, ergo the point is moot. And really, it wouldn't have mattered anyways as long as we kept supplying the British. Sooner or later, we were going to sink a German submarine, a German submarine would have sunk a US ship, some accident would have happened and boom, there's your war.

True,FDR waited for any pretext to start war.

And arguing that Japanese rule would have been better than the Communists is ridiculous because the Communists won because of the goddamn Japanese. If Imperial Japan had been run by Communists hellbent on spreading the world revolution, they could not have done any more for the Communists in China than what they actually did.

You do not undarstandt his post.He do not say that japaneese were good,only that their rule would kill less chineese.That is all.
And he do not deny fact,that Japan agrresion made possible victory of commies there.

 

[Agent23]

True,FDR waited for any pretext to start war.

You do not undarstandt his post.He do not say that japaneese were good,only that their rule would kill less chineese.That is all.
And he do not deny fact,that Japan agrresion made possible victory of commies there.

What made victory for commies possible there was the incompetence of the Chinese nationalist regime.

@Largo can go read Barbara Truckman's book on the extreme corruption and incompetence of the KMT.

And according to some other researchers it was Chang Kai Check getting jailed that tilted the scales to the Commies side.
By his own, currupt and idiotic party.

Thr guy also had a lot of character flaws and an oversized ego, but he actually did fairly well running Taiwan later.

Yo the point where even the current crop of Chinese commies are trying to rehabilitate his historic image.

That said, as both Peter Turchin and Henry Kissinger have pointed out, the Chinese communist party is basically just your standard Chinese mandarinism filled dynasty, to re point where they wrote a full history of the precious reigning dynasty to solidify their power and keep with tradition.

Communism is relagsted to "muh ancestral philosophy/ceremonial religion" and the likes of Xi are busy rehabilitating old ideas like Legalism.

The commie philosophy did not help, but right now it is reduced to an empty suit used to justify the Dynasty's power.

 

[Largo]

@Largo can go read Barbara Truckman's book on the extreme corruption and incompetence of the KMT.

Do you mean Tuchman?

And if so, are you seriously fucking citing Barbara Tuchman? Tuchman was a goddamn hack. She made Stilwell out to be a hero when he should have been shot for incompetence. Seriously, how the hell do you think the moron who wrote The Guns of August can be credible on anything?

The KMT was doing okay before the Japanese invaded. Not perfect, not by a long shot. But before the Japanese showed up, shit was getting better and the Communist could have been defeated. But then the Japanese invaded, destroyed all of the KMT's ability to get money, their best divisions, and then savaged the KMT for years while the Communists got to sit on their ass and promise the moon like every opposition faction in the history of civilization.

What's next, are you going to tell me to read up on Stephen Ambrose?

 

[Zachowon]

Do you mean Tuchman?

And if so, are you seriously fucking citing Barbara Tuchman? Tuchman was a goddamn hack. She made Stilwell out to be a hero when he should have been shot for incompetence. Seriously, how the hell do you think the moron who wrote The Guns of August can be credible on anything?

The KMT was doing okay before the Japanese invaded. Not perfect, not by a long shot. But before the Japanese showed up, shit was getting better and the Communist could have been defeated. But then the Japanese invaded, destroyed all of the KMT's ability to get money, their best divisions, and then savaged the KMT for years while the Communists got to sit on their ass and promise the moon like every opposition faction in the history of civilization.

What's next, are you going to tell me to read up on Stephen Ambrose?

The KMT did majority of the fighting and their leader did what he could with what he had.
The commies just sat in the mountains waiting.

The KMT did damn good at what ever it was and were part of the destruction of the IJA morale.

E.g. The battle of the warehouse in Shanghai.
So influential that the CCP government of China now allowed the movie to he made...about the KMT.
With the nationalist flag.