Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Was World War 2 necessary? (Like Americans joining the war?)

And if colonialism was just for trading, then what happened to the millions of Native Americans, Indians, and other people, they were killed, does trade encourage killing people, that is your explanation, oh my God?

And if colonialism was just for trading, then what happened to the millions of Native Americans, Indians, and other people, they were killed, does trade encourage killing people, that is your explanation, oh my God?

Capitalism isn't a synonym for greedy people exploiting the weak.

This is what I'm talking about with regards to extreme causation by association.

Capitalism isn't a synonym for greedy people exploiting the weak. This is what I'm talking about with regards to extreme causation by association.

  • Yes. The US entry into the war on the side of the Allies was a crucial reinforcement for the rest of the war, particularly in the liberation of the French and Italian fronts and in the Pacific. Also, the US produced a vast amount of war materiel, which it was able to supply through Lend-Lease to various Allied belligerents (British, Soviet, Free French Forces).

  • The French army briefly invaded the Saarland shortly after the invasion of Poland, but the defeat of the Polish army, vague orders from the command quarter, and overly cautious and passive tactics prevented a decisive victory. From what I've read, estimation suggested the French could have reached Berlin in 10 to 15 days, given that all the best German units were in Poland and there were only meager reserves units.

  • Churchill was one of the few who was aware of the danger of what was being doing in Germany, unlike Chamberlain.

- Yes. The US entry into the war on the side of the Allies was a crucial reinforcement for the rest of the war, particularly in the liberation of the French and Italian fronts and in the Pacific. Also, the US produced a vast amount of war materiel, which it was able to supply through Lend-Lease to various Allied belligerents (British, Soviet, Free French Forces). - The French army briefly invaded the Saarland shortly after the invasion of Poland, but the defeat of the Polish army, vague orders from the command quarter, and overly cautious and passive tactics prevented a decisive victory. From what I've read, estimation suggested the French could have reached Berlin in 10 to 15 days, given that all the best German units were in Poland and there were only meager reserves units. - Churchill was one of the few who was aware of the danger of what was being doing in Germany, unlike Chamberlain.

@clousems said ^

Capitalism isn't a synonym for greedy people exploiting the weak.

This is what I'm talking about with regards to extreme causation by association.

Yes, I agree, but argue with my proof
The famines of India
Pollution of the environment
Constant trade wars
Corruption on a mass scale
Poverty
Toxic work Culture
These are all preventable by the way
And others

@clousems said [^](/forum/redirect/post/MKrcy7oD) > Capitalism isn't a synonym for greedy people exploiting the weak. > > This is what I'm talking about with regards to extreme causation by association. Yes, I agree, but argue with my proof The famines of India Pollution of the environment Constant trade wars Corruption on a mass scale Poverty Toxic work Culture These are all preventable by the way And others

@Rage698 said ^

The Americans stayed neutral while others are brawling, so after a while everyone is tired and two of the others are in a not-so-great relation. Then when Japan attacked USA it finally joins in and it's not bruised yet like others. Then USA gets a spot in the war, a good spot.

Now look at China. Staying neutral (at least to others than USA) while Israel and others take sides. Who will end up bruised and who will end up perfectly ok?

Bro learn history, Israel did not exist, before World War II, and USA, was the only winner of the war, so obviously, the USA had a great strategy, fund Britain to kill millions of people, then,show Germany was bad too, so that they could steal everything, and become a superpowers from their weapons.
That is why so many people hate USA, because of World War II, if they had not funded Britain, the war would be over by 1940, Britain could literally starve to death, without the USA, because of the nazis.
Due to Winston Churchill ego, millions of Russians, Indians, Americans, and other people died, if America had not funded Britain, then, hitler could have won, but at a great cost.
And if the USA was really the land of the free, it would have assassinated Stalin by 1940, and given Russia time to prepare, for the Nazis

I’m talking about a side topic, (after the first paragraph)

@Rage698 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/7qy9GfTp) > > The Americans stayed neutral while others are brawling, so after a while everyone is tired and two of the others are in a not-so-great relation. Then when Japan attacked USA it finally joins in and it's not bruised yet like others. Then USA gets a spot in the war, a good spot. > > > > Now look at China. Staying neutral (at least to others than USA) while Israel and others take sides. Who will end up bruised and who will end up perfectly ok? > > Bro learn history, Israel did not exist, before World War II, and USA, was the only winner of the war, so obviously, the USA had a great strategy, fund Britain to kill millions of people, then,show Germany was bad too, so that they could steal everything, and become a superpowers from their weapons. > That is why so many people hate USA, because of World War II, if they had not funded Britain, the war would be over by 1940, Britain could literally starve to death, without the USA, because of the nazis. > Due to Winston Churchill ego, millions of Russians, Indians, Americans, and other people died, if America had not funded Britain, then, hitler could have won, but at a great cost. > And if the USA was really the land of the free, it would have assassinated Stalin by 1940, and given Russia time to prepare, for the Nazis I’m talking about a side topic, (after the first paragraph)

@tpr said ^

"Fascism is the logical consequence of capitalism."

  • No. Both in Italy and in Germany fascism resulted from socialism. Mussolini was a socialist at first.
    The National Socialist German Workers' Party has Socialist and Workers in its title.

Party names are not ideological receipts. I don't see anyone calling the DPRK democratic...

Hitler won the elections from the socialists and the communists because of the nationalist part: 'I will make Germany great again.'

Well, offficially, Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg. He came to power via economic crisis, fear of revolution among elites, support from conservative ruling circles and the weakness of the KPD etc. Nationalism worked well to rally the vulnerable masses.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/hyMuQCAa) > "Fascism is the logical consequence of capitalism." > * No. Both in Italy and in Germany fascism resulted from socialism. Mussolini was a socialist at first. > The National Socialist German Workers' Party has Socialist and Workers in its title. Party names are not ideological receipts. I don't see anyone calling the DPRK democratic... > Hitler won the elections from the socialists and the communists because of the nationalist part: 'I will make Germany great again.' Well, offficially, Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg. He came to power via economic crisis, fear of revolution among elites, support from conservative ruling circles and the weakness of the KPD etc. Nationalism worked well to rally the vulnerable masses.

"USSR was communist"

  • No, it was the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.
"USSR was communist" * No, it was the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

"Nationalism worked well to rally the vulnerable masses"

  • The people suffered from the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles.
    Communists, Socialists, and National Socialists vied for their votes, but the nationalism triumphed.

"Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg"

  • After wining the elections. Hindenburg had no other option.
"Nationalism worked well to rally the vulnerable masses" * The people suffered from the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles. Communists, Socialists, and National Socialists vied for their votes, but the nationalism triumphed. "Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg" * After wining the elections. Hindenburg had no other option.

Nope that's pure nonsense lol.

People could always choose something else than Hitler.

Nope that's pure nonsense lol. People could always choose something else than Hitler.

"People could always choose something else than Hitler."

  • But the people chose Hitler and his promesse to make Germany great again.
"People could always choose something else than Hitler." * But the people chose Hitler and his promesse to make Germany great again.