Yik Yak icon
Join communities on Yik Yak Download
My take about wars that the US has fought is that the American Civil War and WWII are the only objectively moral ones. Any other conflict this country was in is at least questionable
upvote 8 downvote

🦧
Anonymous 7w

there are no moral wars. the US fought not to end slavery, but to bring the southern states back into the union. for the entire nation’s history it has been a genocidal slave state. the U.S. fought the fascist empires in WWII, not because Americans opposed fascism or white supremacy, but to inherit and empire and carve out new concessions. we really should call WWII what it was: the second imperialist war

upvote 8 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 7w

Also I’m not gonna consider the American Revolution because that wasn’t a war fought by the country of the United States

upvote 4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 7w

WW2 wasn’t moral. We had no problem selling supplies to the Nazis for years. We only got involved when we were attacked. It was retaliatory, not moral.

upvote 4 downvote
💿
Anonymous 7w

Gulf war?

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 7w

That’s dumb that should count

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 7w

we weren’t a country so it doesn’t exactly count that it was a conflict for the country. if anything, it’s a conflict Great Britain was in against itself which resulted in the creation of our country.

upvote 5 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> _orangutan 7w

I don’t agree with most of this argument but I think these are respectable points

upvote 4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 7w

Ok it’s true that the US and the Nazis had international trade, but the US didn’t sell them military equipment. And the US took away trade concessions and imposed tariffs on Germany for its actions long before Pearl Harbor. There was basically no trade between the two countries by 1940. The US also imposed strong embargoes on Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. The US took a proactive stance in hindering the Axis powers, before it got involved militarily

upvote 0 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 7w

“Involved” is not a very precise word, but I think it’s fair to say that the US’s trade policies made them involved in slowing down the Axis powers well before Pearl Harbor

upvote 0 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> _orangutan 7w

Sure the US fought to bring the south back into the union, but slavery was the primary reason that the south seceded. And when the Union became sure that it would win, it added on the promise that slavery would be abolished, because if it didn’t, then the same conflict would happen again later

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 7w

It doesn’t matter if it was rifles, cotton, or corn. We supplied Nazi Germany up until weeks before Pearl Harbor. Period.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 1w

Ok, but the US did way more economic harm to the Axis powers than good, before it got involved in the war. And meanwhile we were selling entire warships to the UK. The US absolutely took sides before Pearl Harbor. The trickle of supplies to Germany that you’re pointing at are just not consequential in comparison.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 1w

i mean considering how the U.S. recruited & embraced the Nazi scientists and researchers for their own benefit… i’d say it was consequential in at least some way

upvote 8 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 1w

So you agree, The U.S. continued to support and supply Nazi Germany right up until Pearl Harbor. Cool.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 1w

I admit recruiting Nazis is questionable, but that was after the war. Meaning that it didn’t help the Nazi war effort. And the way you phrased it makes it sound like we took all of them. Regardless, this doesn’t mean that the US supported the Nazi regime, it just means that it kidnapped some smart people

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 1w

Support, no. The US placed many tariffs and embargoes on Germany while cutting back on trade. And the way you use supply makes it sound like the US was just sending goods. Germany was buying them, not receiving them for free. And you’re still ignoring how the US chose sides in the war before Pearl Harbor, by being economically friendly to the allies. But let’s return to the original topic. The US getting involved in WWII was objectively morally correct

upvote 0 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 1w

considering how the Nazis efforts did not end with the war, and how they *still* want to establish a fourth reich, I’d argue it did indeed help the nazi’s long-term goals by ensuring their ideals did not die off as they should have. I’m sorry but it’s naive as fuck to act as if intentionally recruiting Nazis after the war was essentially harmless. That is directly part of the reason we’re dealing with a modern revitalization of Naziism. (ofc that goes for every nation that engaged in that)

upvote 3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 1w

No.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 1w

also let’s not pretend that we were explicitly against the Nazis the whole time. why do you think it took so long for us to join the war effort?

upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 1w

i’m sorry — KIDNAPPED? gurl no lol they came willingly and it was a full agreement between the two parties. Nazis got their tactics from our Jim Crow era so naturally many of them were like “ayy but you’re so inspiring can I not get punished for my dangerous ideology and just help you with my skills instead?” and we were cool with that. 😐 reasons why that dangerous ideology is rampant in the current administration.

upvote 3 downvote