Comment on asked and answered

• the_crotch@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Nah. Lend lease was in full swing, and they were sanctioning the imperial Japanese. Hindsight is 20/20, there was a glimmer of hope at the time that the problem could be resolved with political pressure. Putting boots on the ground without trying anything else first is Bush doctrine level bullshit.

  source

  • Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Canada seemed to have it figured out.

    source

    • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      At that point in history Canada would have followed the British crown wherever it went. If Britain had sided with Hitler Canada would have been an axis power.

      source

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        No. The 1931 Statute of Westminster gave us full control over our foreign policy. The phrase “When Britain is at war, Canada is at war” was about the first world war, not the second.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Lend lease was in full swing, and they were sanctioning the imperial Japanese.

    Not really… Sanctions against Japan and Lend and lease were approved the same year we entered the war.

    there was a glimmer of hope at the time that the problem could be resolved with political pressure.

    I mean, that’s what both the Japanese and the Nazi were hoping for. That the rest of the world would settle for peace and allow them to keep their spoils.

    Putting boots on the ground without trying anything else first is Bush doctrine level bullshit.

    And when has appeasing fascist with political discourse ever worked? There’s a difference between standing up to literal fascist invading allies, and Bush’s “war on terror”, trying to conflate the two is pathetic.

    source

    • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I mean, that’s what both the Japanese and the Nazi were hoping for. That the rest of the world would settle for peace and allow them to keep their spoils.

      Oh, ok. That must be why the Japanese attacked the US, right? Because they were hoping for peace.

      There’s a difference between standing up to literal fascist invading allies, and Bush’s “war on terror”,

      Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?

      trying to conflate the two is pathetic.

      Fuck you

      when has appeasing fascist with political discourse ever worked?

      You sound like a republican, circa 2003

      source

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Oh, ok. That must be why the Japanese attacked the US, right? Because they were hoping for peace.

        Literally yes. The Japanese were trying to wipe the entire Pacific fleet out with one punch, making it too costly for the Americans to enter the war. They were hoping that America would cut their losses and settle for a negotiated peace that allowed the Japanese to keep their Pacific holdings.

        Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?

        Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?

        The devil is in the details… Fascism may have some overlaps with the Baathis party, mostly with their authoritarianism. But it’s pretty distinct from it considering Baathism revolves around pan Arabic unity and socialism.

        You sound like a republican, circa 2003

        Lol, and you sound like Neville Chamberlain circa 1930’s.

        source

        • -> View More Comments