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

@tpr said ^

"the Bavaria March"

• The 1923 beer hall putsch was a failure, that got Hitler jailed.
  He won the 1933 elections with his nationalistic pitch.

"Britain, France and Japan would not let go of them"

• Germany was stripped of its colonies and of territories by the Versailles Treaty.
  Japan conquered territory in Asia to get raw materials: oil, rubber, ore...

The putsch was a failure,yes but somehow, it made him even more popular
Britain, France in Japan would not let go of the colonies, because of capitalism.
At least hear the full point.

@Da-Bhone 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

Obviously, you might say that, how would it save Russians?, Germany would still invade the Soviet Union., my bad that was the wrong point, but it would have still saved millions of Indians, and other colonies

Blaming colonialism on capitalism makes about as much sense as claiming that socialism is a failure because of the USSR. I think a major flaw with much of the anti-capitalist sentiment I see online is the tendency to resort to extreme examples of causation by association.

"if the USA was really the land of the free, it would have assassinated Stalin by 1940"

• There was no reason for that.

"given Russia time to prepare, for the Nazis"

• The 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact enabled Germany and the Soviet Union to invade Poland.

@clousems said ^

Blaming colonialism on capitalism makes about as much sense as claiming that socialism is a failure because of the USSR. I think a major flaw with much of the anti-capitalist sentiment I see online is the tendency to resort to extreme examples of causation by association.

Firstly, USSR was communist, socialism, and communism are different, secondly colonialism was caused by capitalism, so it makes sense.

@Rage698 said ^

Blaming colonialism on capitalism makes about as much sense as claiming that socialism is a failure because of the USSR. I think a major flaw with much of the anti-capitalist sentiment I see online is the tendency to resort to extreme examples of causation by association.

Firstly, USSR was communist, socialism, and communism are different, secondly colonialism was caused by capitalism, so it makes sense.

And this is not extremism, this is the truth, if there were no currency, or mass funding, due to capitalism, and company’s made by capitalism, then colonisation would have no point, as gold and silver become jewellery material, not currency, so there would be no point in exploring the Americas, unless you want to land ofc, plus, India was colonised by the EIC, not by Britain itself

@tpr said ^

"if the USA was really the land of the free, it would have assassinated Stalin by 1940"

• There was no reason for that.

"given Russia time to prepare, for the Nazis"

• The 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact enabled Germany and the Soviet Union to invade Poland.

There was no reason for assassinating stalin yes, but it would improve Marketing image, and I am talking about this more in a sense of morals.

@Rage698 said ^

Firstly, USSR was communist, socialism, and communism are different,

That was my point

secondly colonialism was caused by capitalism, so it makes sense.

No it wasn't. Colonialism long predates capitalism, and colonialism is far more in line with mercantilism than other economic forms.

@clousems said ^

Firstly, USSR was communist, socialism, and communism are different,

That was my point

secondly colonialism was caused by capitalism, so it makes sense.

No it wasn't. Colonialism long predates capitalism, and it's more in line with mercantilism than anything.

Okay, fine, but colonialism does not predict capitalism, remember the EIC, it was sent to Earn riches, after the trading part, so do you think, that colonialism was just there for trading, really, you should really visit a colonised country, then you will understand the truth.