American Atrocities

What follows is a partially completed reply that has been sitting on my hard drive.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

No. U.S. would have been better off minding it’s own business.

In the vein of Mufasa’s posts, how would you have dealt with Hitler? To just say, “We shouldn’t have done anything.” comes across like you think the whole “Nazi fad” was wearing off. IMO, letting Hitler take the rest of Europe and further develop nuclear, jet propulsion, and submarine technologies (among others) would only made things worse for Americans.

And there has got to be some moral relativism coinage in turning your back on your allies (or any genocide of that scope). Good men doing nothing and all that.[/quote]

I find it exceedingly difficult to even approach that question but I’ll do my best to provide you a constructive answer that fits into my existing rhetorical framework.

My initial, knee-jerk reaction to it is always the same:

Before delving into speculation, one must first understand that the problem was giving Hitler an opportunity to come to power in the first place - by intervening in WWI. The dominant theme of American foreign policy in the 20th century, which no one can reasonably deny, is that one invasion has led to another, and more invasions following, in a seemingly perpetual cycle. Critique of said policy, whether positive or negative, is not to be invoked at this time. I merely advance this in neutral terms as a point of historical fact.

If there is no quarrel with what I have just written, then we can move on and begin to address topics of hypothetical nature, such as what would have been the proper course of action for America to take after the first World War.

Now comes the hard part. The question you present is very thorny due to the complex nature of international relations.

I will advance two suppositions, as follows:

Supposition 1: The US made a mistake by entering WWI.

Supposition 2: Grand-scale foreign policy errors do not come without negative consequences for their makers, at least the majority of the time. The best that a country can hope for is that it’s errors will be canceled out by those of another country, but this will not always be the case.

This is very difficult to answer because it’s all hypothetical. Once you embark on the road to interventionism/economic fascism, who can say there is any turning back?

Ha you think that the u.s. killing the japanese were bad. Or the germans in the holocost. russian history. That my friend is some scary shit. Stalin killed a known 20 million of HIS own people. That’s just in the gulag’s, not even counting the famines and military deaths. They are still uncovering mass graves from that era, so the numbers are still growing. So why isn’t there any arguments about how ethical that situation was. How come we are arguing over what the U.S. did in WWII in the pacific, if it was ethical or not. Basically we had to show our development of the bomb, or Russia could have beat us to it. Then we all would have had to bend to the will of a person who would have had no issues using the bombs against anyone. But since we got ours off first we avoided American deaths, and prevented Russia from being the first too have successfully used the bomb.
Just my 2 cents.
Oh and the info comes from books.
Koba the Dread, laughter and the twenty million. Martin Amis.
And A history of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End. Peter Kenez

[quote]Reyno109 wrote:
How come we are arguing over what the U.S. did in WWII in the pacific, if it was ethical or not.[/quote]

Because the Soviet Union collapsed and the US remains the world’s sole superpower. It’s important that your government be held accountable for the many atrocities commited in your name (of which Hiroshima might just be the most justifiable); By the looks of it, many more are on their way…