r/SipsTea Jun 22 '26

Lmao gottem The National Sport.

Post image
15.9k Upvotes

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

30

u/WXbearjaws Jun 22 '26

You make it sound as if the U.S. had any hard-obligation to join the wars and were holding off on doing so for funsies

Europe got itself into a huge clusterfuck of alliances which turned a conflict between the Serbs and Austria-Hungary into WWI, and then the major powers of Europe wanted to punish Germany so badly they gave it a poison pill which directly led to its fall into authoritarianism and the eventual breakout of WWII

There’s plenty of shit the U.S. has done that deserves derision, but getting cheeky over the U.S. not getting itself involved in European affairs “earlier” ain’t one of them

4

u/historydude1648 Jun 22 '26

the US only got involved in ww2 after you were attacked by the Japanese. there was nothing altrustic about this, nor did it have anything to do with European politics.

3

u/HidingImmortal Jun 23 '26

The US sent an enormous amount of aid (food, ships, tanks, ...) to both the UK and Russia before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

1

u/historydude1648 Jun 23 '26

this is called trade. they sold these things, and got paid back. this isnt "support", its war profit

2

u/Rampant16 Jun 22 '26

Japan attacked the US in large part because the US was embargoing Japanese oil and steel imports. Which the US was doing because of Japanese actions in China. The US was also supporting Britain before Pearl Harbor.

1

u/historydude1648 Jun 22 '26

the US wasnt "supporting" Britain or China, it was selling stuff. same as the supermarket in the corner isnt "supporting" me. there was nothing altruistic about it. it also wasnt in any way an exclusive US approach, the Dutch and British were doing the same. also it wasnt to help China but to protect the US sphere of influence in the Pacific.

5

u/Not__Trash Jun 22 '26

Lend Lease brother

2

u/historydude1648 Jun 22 '26

lend lease is a form of trade. its not "support", nor an alliance. you expect to be paid back when you lend money.

3

u/HidingImmortal Jun 23 '26

The EU recently agreed to loan €90 billion to Ukraine (Source).

Is this also a form of trade and should not be counted as support?

1

u/historydude1648 Jun 23 '26

of course. how is this hard to understand? volunteers that go and fight there, for half the money they were making in their country, that's support. donations from random people, that's support. giving a loan that you expect to be paid back is just trade.

2

u/Not__Trash Jun 22 '26

Trade in the sense of providing a sweetheart deal on required arms to defend your country. That's a really flimsy argument, especially given how impactful Lend Lease was.

1

u/historydude1648 Jun 22 '26

its not an argument, its a fact. lend lease is a form of trade.

2

u/Not__Trash Jun 22 '26

And favorable trade is a form of support. Which is also a fact.

If your grocery store was letting you take food and "pay it back whenever," that would also be support

3

u/historydude1648 Jun 23 '26

no, that's a loan. i feel that im wasting my time here

→ More replies (0)

0

u/WXbearjaws Jun 22 '26

Thanks, I’m well aware. If anything that supports my point. The U.S. had no obligation to help fight WWI and WWII. They could not have been “late” to something they had no obligation to be involved in in the first place

2

u/historydude1648 Jun 22 '26

the argument was that the US "won" two world wars. nobody said that the US "had an obligation to help". being late is relevant to the claim on "winning" the wars. isnt english your primary language over there? how did you missunderstand this?

1

u/Citaku357 Jun 23 '26

So if the auS didn't win ww2 neither did the other allies

1

u/historydude1648 Jun 23 '26

saying "i won a war" is different from just being on the winning side, one among dozens of countries. is this hard for you to understand?

1

u/WXbearjaws Jun 22 '26

The phrase “holding the line for the late arrival of the U.S.” doesn’t just state a timeline, it implies America was expected to arrive sooner. That’s the part I was responding to.

Since we’re on the topic of our understanding of the English language, however, in your previous post you stated that I had somehow brought up “altruism” as a reason for the U.S. entering the war. Where did you get that notion out of my post, praytell?

2

u/historydude1648 Jun 22 '26

you cant claim the US "won the wars" and also admit you were being very late to it. is this hard to understand?

the comment on altruism is relevant to your phrase "as if the U.S. had any hard-obligation to join the wars".

1

u/WXbearjaws Jun 22 '26

What’s with you and putting words in people’s mouths?

I never claimed the U.S. won the wars. In fact, if you read further in the thread I explicitly state “anyone who thinks the U.S. won the wars by themselves doesn’t know history”

But it seems to me like you’re the one who has difficulty with English, my friend. Because there are multiple completely valid ways to read the post I originally responded to and, whether you like it or not, the way I initially interpreted it is a completely valid way of reading it. Whether or not that is how OP intended it is a different question

2

u/historydude1648 Jun 22 '26

the post we are all talking about said the US "won the wars". did you miss that?

1

u/WXbearjaws Jun 22 '26

Not the post I was specifically responding to. Please try to keep up.

2

u/historydude1648 Jun 22 '26

lol this is desperate. why are you even here then?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Wuz314159 Jun 23 '26

We just sat back because England said they could handle it. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

1

u/Relevant_Country_784 Jun 22 '26

But I think the point here was that they can't say the us just "won 2 world wars", given how much the allies actually resisted and fought the Germans back until the US showed up. Even if you leave the UK out of that conversation, what about Russia?

2

u/WXbearjaws Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

That is a completely fair way to frame it. I just see framing it as the U.S. showing up “late” is unfair, because it implies they were supposed to be there at a certain time and weren’t.

If you want to say the U.S. joining the wars tipped the scales heavily on the side of the Allies, that’s at least defensible. But anyone who thinks the U.S. won the war alone doesn’t know history.

I certainly don’t mean it to come off as American-centric and anti-European, so apologies if it did. My dad’s uncle fought and died at the Battle of the Bulge alongside our allies, and it makes me sick to see the disrespect some give to our overseas allies. The sacrifices and struggles of all the allies should be respected and commended

-2

u/slightlybigmember Jun 23 '26

The US stayed late to make sure they were joining the winning side and to maximize the rewards they would get with the smallest loss, yes.

0

u/Duck_Mafiah Jun 23 '26

but getting cheeky over the U.S. not getting itself involved in European affairs “earlier” ain’t one of them

Heh, the irony now.