A German foundation has said it will no longer be awarding a prize for political thinking to a leading Russian-American journalist after criticizing as “unacceptable” a recent essay by the writer in which they made a comparison between Gaza and a Jewish ghetto in Nazi-occupied Europe.
I call bullshit. Why was the US supplying weapons to all of Germany’s enemies starting in 1941 (months before Pearl Harbor)?
Americans mainly wanted to avoid siding with anyone because they saw the war as a European conflict they didn’t need to be involved in.
You’re right to call BS: I provided no supportive evidence. I’ll try to do so.
The US “dealers of death” '(a precursor name of the military industrial complex) were happy to sell to anyone who was buying. Commercial support is only relevant as a source for lobbying.
The (strictly non-interventionalist at the time) US government officially wanted to avoid involvement in a war as a belligerent. That doesn’t preclude sympathy within Congress or amongst the people for either side. The popularity of “America First” and Lindbergh in particular demonstrate that.
Germany was compelled to declare war against the US because of Pearl Harbour, the US’ declaration was just reciprocation. The US, now busy in the Pacific, entered the European theatre only after operation
barbossabarbarossa, noting that Germany had already made its fatal strategic blunder and was weakened from its battle of Britain defeat.The Wikipedia articles have good sources and are well edited. They’re a good place to find entry points into the histories.
Everything you just said is correct as far as I know, but I don’t think it supports your original statement. The US was acting like Switzerland, which is scummy as hell when one side of a conflict is clearly in the wrong, but that doesn’t mean the US waited until Germany looked like it was losing. I’m not that much of a WWII scholar, but I was as a kid, and I wouldn’t say Germany was clearly losing until after the D-day invasion in mid 1944. That’s certainly the position assumed by popular portrayals of WWII, such as Jojo Rabbit and Downfall, to pick a US example and the one German one I know.
I wouldn’t use Hollywood as a source. What sells well to the American public? America winning the war.
In British media, it’s the battle of Britain.
I imagine Soviet media would show it as operation
barbossabarbarossa.But yes, scummy as hell.
Barbarossa. It’s Operation Barbarossa. And again, you continue to ignore the political reality that at least two giant constituencies in the US had very good reasons for not wanting to get into the European war. In a democracy, their views could not be ignored, no matter what others may have thought was the right thing to do. As I constantly find myself repeating to people on lemmy, winning an election doesn’t mean that you get to do anything you want, it means that you can probably do some of the things you want and will have to compromise on others.
That’s me falling afoul of auto correct. I’ll edit.
True, it’s not a real source. But I think it says something when media from both sides of the conflict paint the same picture.
My point was that the allied countries’ media doesn’t present the same picture.
Of course axis media will paint the picture of their defeat as a late as possible, new player introduction; rather than incompetence in high command.
One must evaluate the source’s Providence, motivation, etc.