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

The topic was whether America should have joined the world war. You basically turned it into a boohoo about how Britain invaded our country and they were the real problem according to you. Mate, if you really wanted to go off topic, you could have created a separate forum post and argued with yourself. No one would have been there to contradict you.
Now, about what you called @greenteakitten (sorry for the ping!). Have some basic respect for fellow forum posters who are here to have a civil discussion. Which I don't think you are, you have just come here for a complete rant. For some reason, you bring up colonialism in almost every single post you have made here. It literally feels like you have come to spew hatred towards Britain. Either stick to the topic, or go rant in your own, very separate forum post.

Okay, @Rage698, you seem to be offline, but let's reply to a bit of the insanity.

1. You really don't get it, do you? "America did bad things in past present and probably future" is a true statement. "Imperialism is bad" is also a true statement. I also never said it wasn't, and neither did anyone else for that matter. You're arguing with a brick wall with these diabolical strawmen. And also very much proving my point when I said that people don't consider that criticism of America is only valid when it's done in good faith. Like, what does AI fruit love island have to do with World War II? You're grasping at straws to avoid the actual arguments here that you've been presented with: mainly that a) excessively blaming England and the Allies as a whole for their mistakes while largely excusing Germany's (and I know you'll say you aren't doing that, but the fact is, when we choose to focus on the faults of one side exclusively, especially when they are technically historically the better side, you literally subtly turn black into white and white into black) is very much dangerous rhetoric. It echoes the same patterns of the Civil War (I assume this is covered in world history for most?) where the South chose to smear Lincoln for prioritizing the Union over slavery while conveniently ignoring their own role in the plantations. Yes, history isn't black and white like I said before. That doesn't mean you get to try to turn the light shade of grey and the dark shade of grey into one and the same or even reverse them just because you don't like a country.

2. Expanding on my last point, just because something is true doesn't mean it isn't a strawman. If you start talking about Holi and I butt in with how much I hate the caste system blah blah blah, isn't that quite racist of me to do so? But isn't it also true? Standards don't stop existing when America's talked about. Your points about America are frankly extremely xenophobic at points and also show a complete lack of attention to historical accuracy. It's not my job to defend against a true statement I agreed with at the beginning but also pointed out has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not going to let you derail my points into suggesting I support imperialism purely because I refuse to let you victim blame your way through World War II. "I am not denying the Axis committed atrocities" -- yes, but you are downplaying it by making it all about India and colonialism instead of focusing on OP's question: whether World War II was necessary. Yes, some of the stuff the Allies did was horrific. That's also normal in total war. War isn't all sunshine and rainbows; ignoring that and falsely equating internment camps and regular bombing to systemic genocide is incredibly dishonest. I can care about human suffering regardless of the side without turning into a suffering contest and still care that we don't overly emphasize one side's mistakes to the point where we forget there was very much a hero and a villain in this story. Flawed hero =/= second villain.

3. You keep on suggesting the British could have prevented the war. That is historically inaccurate. The reason the countries chose appeasement was because the concept of another war after how horrific the first one had been was terrifying. You forget how much people underestimated Hitler at the time -- nobody knew the man could actually follow through on his promises. Actually, the British saved World War II by holding on and refusing surrender to Hitler. The fall of Western Europe and thus collapse of colonial support would have been devastating. Also remember that the treaty of Versailles was heavily opposed by America who foresaw it becoming economically unviable and turning into another world war with the Carthaginian peace. Britain also didn't appreciate it. The only reason it happened was because the French wanted their damages paid back.

4. Lazy blanket statements against Britain and America isn't going to help you show anything against more well thought out arguments. You aren't better or morally superior because you come from a colonized country (by that logic, since I was born in America, also a colonized country, I am better than everyone else) -- there, I said it. I already told you I was a minority ages ago; you aren't getting anything trying to pull white guilt on me lol.

5. Okay, now going to respond to individual quotes:

Alright, since Point number three, is quite personal, I won’t answer it, since it is not related as well

It is. I'm showing you your own hypocrisy. Let me quote myself again to make it more clear for you because it is not my job to answer things when you keep on demanding answers without ever reading them when I provide replies.

Your flag says you’re Indian; surely you would be aware of this in your own country as well? Does it not frustrate you when people make endless memes about India that are very much racist, yet your own countrymen are filled with so much self-hatred that they just let it slide time and time again? If so, why do you create such a double standard when it comes to America?

^^above is the essence of it: that you wouldn't want your own people or government generalized negatively, so what makes you think it's okay to do it to anybody else? C'mon man, we all learn the golden rule in kindergarten.

do you really think colonisation is not demonic

I have a suggestion for you before you start running away yapping: read what I actually say. Here, I'll even quote it for you:

IV) The extent of the Holocaust was actually largely unknown until about 1943 or so when escaped victims finally managed to get their story out more. Suggesting that the Allies were “inefficient" instead of focusing on the horrors of the war crimes of the other side is just victim blaming at its best.

I would like you to point out where colonialism is ever mentioned here.

Secondly, being transparent about your ugly history, you never made Britain apologise for all the atrocities, including 3 million people killed unnecessarily, just because of Churchill’s, comment,

If you think it's America's job to babysit Britain, you have bigger problems here, mate. And for the record, the colonization of India is taught very much through the lens of India here -- 1600s British East India Company, 1757 Battle of Plassey, Charter Act of 1833, Sepoy Mutiny, Formation of India National Congress, Gandhi, Muslim League, Government of India, Partition of India, etc.

Here's a few snippets from my online textbook. I could give more but I'd rather this not turn into a thesis. Also, due to forum limits, a lot of these aren't as highly specific, but you get the point. :)

<<notice the clear call out of America here as well

if you are so transparent, why didn’t you defend the central African countries, when the CFA deal was being signed

Because I wasn't alive, buddy. But no, in all seriousness -- the USA has provided health assistance in areas like Cameroon worth billions of francs. America has also historically supported the independence of African nations, because well, Cold War. Are all of those intentions pure? Probably not. But let's not pretend aid and defense hasn't always been a thing.

Also -- you do realize the CFA deal is made by France for France, yes? And it directly counters the influence of the US dollar? Are we really going to pretend America was happy about that? There is zero public evidence that America lobbied for the deal.

if World War II was caused by the treaty of Versaille and one man and his small group, then why did you blame the German people for it, so we should also blame the British, if you want to play the blame. game

I) I have serious questions about the level of history you've learned if you seriously think the treaty was written by Britain alone or a single man.

II) I never blamed the German people -- please actually read what I say before you start your strawmen. I said that Hitler should still be held responsible despite the Carthaginian peace it imposed. War may have been inevitable; the cruelty of the genocide was not.

lastly , you taught partially incorrect history to German people, saying the Allies were heroes

I don't think you realize how dangerously close you are to defending Nazi rhetoric right now. And this is why I've engaged for so long. You are so blinded by your rants on colonialism you've forgotten just how horrific the war was for the victims. The Jews. The Filipinos, the Koreans, the Chinese, and so many more. If you're going to start running off about how you think you personally could have prevented a whole world war at the very least educate yourself on the horrors these people endured. But given how our past interactions have gone with rights for women -- I doubt you will change -- I still sincerely hope you can see what I'm trying to tell you and actually read before virtue signaling and personally claiming the suffering of your ancestors (my family suffered through communist rule and you don't see me personally claiming their suffering, do you? No, I recognize that just because I'm a descendant doesn't mean I get to reappropriate that trauma).

P.S. What kind of insult is "kitchen" lol? If you're going to try to ragebait your opponents, find something more poetic ;)

@nomen-nudum said ^

I mean you do realise that every USian who says that the US is the best always comes up with justifications and facts to "prove" it?

1. I didn't say the US was the best. And I don't think being the best at teaching ugly history is a good thing. That usually means you have so much ugly history that you physically can't keep it hidden from the masses anymore. It'd be an odd thing to brag about imho.

2. I cited a specific standardized class, the topics behind that class, and more. You are purposefully focusing on the wrong thing here. If you read it in the broader context, it is pretty clear my point behind that is to show I am not anymore brainwashed than the next person -- and that given my education I do in fact know enough to prove my own points when it comes to imperialism, colonialism, and the like. Whether you want to believe me or not isn't really my problem -- the point isn't to boast and you know that.

The point is in my experience no other nationality (*) is constantly boasting about how their country is the best and how they got everything right and how they know better than everyone and how the rest of the world is terribly misunderstanding them. It's a pattern. I am not saying that you were personally arrogant, but your comment definitely fitted in the pattern.

Okay, well, your phrasing did indeed suggest I was personally arrogant and I don't think it's a bad thing if I match the tone and energy of those who reply to me.

For the record, I think it entirely depends on your sphere of Internet. The most nationalist people I have met were primarily from Asia (India, China, Japan, etc.) and I actually meet very few legitimate American nationalists. In fact, I live in a region where we make it our personal hobby to laugh about how terrible everything is (isn't that a universal experience?). My problem, and the point you're proving here, is that America is one of the few countries where self-proclaimed patriots are usually white conservative nationalists which makes it difficult for anyone else to claim anything nice without associating themselves with such a community, perpetuating a cycle where steadily anybody who praises their own country gets dragged down for no particular reason. I have noticed that on Lichess this odd xenophobia towards America has been increasing (of course, not helped by certain alts on here). Comments that personally advocate for America's destruction with this weird cultural chauvinism would be crucified if they switched the country name. Can you imagine if I suggested India deserved colonialism because insert random oppression statistic here? Yet, that is what is being done the other way around. Just because a country is arguably more powerful doesn't make it any more correct.

I disagree. From my personal observation if you were to talk about how great certain aspects of China are then more often than not someone would start with the chapter "but the Uyghurs, but Taïwan, but workers conditions..."

Dissent doesn't prove me wrong though. Usually the Wumaos start coming out of the woodwork and ever since the "I'm so Chinese" trend people are much more receptive to China as a whole. Just based on comment ratios alone; people are pretty good at spotting the strawmen nowadays, and I think the fact that China is indeed very advanced in many ways does help with that.

From my observation, the problem is not that US citizens are conflated with their government (unfairly or not). The problem is that whenever someone criticises" the US", everyone understands that they are talking about the US government, except for USians, who take it personally and think that this person is attacking US citizens in general, unfairly conflating them with the government.

So, are we going to read through what I was responding to in this thread? Obvious strawmen and virtue signaling from others to avoid actual arguments about the debates they started, dangerously borderline Nazi rhetoric, etc. -- because that's what I'm pointing to here, and there were clearly personal attacks included in the posts I respond to, as well as the fact that the last time I communicated with this poster I trust that you remember it went similarly, so I'm not just responding to this but a trend I have seen in someone for a while.

Also, for the record, a lot of stuff does attack American citizens in general. America is considered unable to produce any culture of its own (melting pot, and so much more), to have terrible food (hello? soul food? southern bbq?), various obese, uneducated, backward, etc. traits in stereotypes. Of course some of it does have a grain of truth; it still crosses a line multiple times (which again would be easily demonstrated if one changed the country name). At first, it's funny; after a while, it gets old, especially when Europe isn't criticized for many of the same things (see "America's foods use so many chemicals" presented misleadingly in comparison to Europe).

That said, yes, I am sure that there are instances when people are being mocked rather than the government, but I haven't seen this as being especially predominant.

Again, sphere of the Internet matters. While I don't claim to speak for the majority of the Internet, given my wide range of consumption, I do think I'm pretty qualified to speak on general trends lol.

Ok so your point is that the US is treated differently than other countries in online discussion forums, and that it's unfair. But even without going in the question of whether that's unfair or not, if it is true that the US is treated differently, there must be an explanation for it, right? Things don't just spontaneously happen without a cause or reason or explanation. So what, in your opinion, sets the US appart from all other countries, that might explain why they are treated differently?

I don't know if you meant this to be a catch-22 but the reason is pretty simple -- the US is big and has an equally big presence on the Internet. People criticize it for the same reason as Christianity. You have a handful of Americans who choose to be absolute AHs online and they get screenshotted everywhere and go viral. Then you have the idiots also going viral for their stupidity (some of them are obvious trolls; I'm not sure why people can't tell the difference). And we all see that. We recognize that we have many issues that need reform. And as a result, jokes or jabs at our expense feel deserved. But at a certain point -- if someone is saying things about America and Americans that they would not if role reversal to other countries -- you have to ask yourself, is this really criticism in good faith anymore? Random example here but Russian trolls shouldn't be upvoted for advocating for America's destruction simply because they said a grain of truth about a piece of ugly history. Just because something is true doesn't mean it needs to be weaponized as a pawn in arguments, if you get what I mean.

Additionally -- and I think I covered this above as well -- American defenders are increasingly exclusively white racist conservatives who probably hold membership in the KKK. That makes it really difficult for the layperson to say anything positive without being associated with them as well, which creates a cycle where those white racist conservatives point to what other people say and go "see? I was right! We are justified to do what we do because other people hate on America!" which only exacerbates the problem, and then less people want to speak up when they see something problematic, etc.

Here we have someone suggesting that because colonialism was horrific and the Allies did occasionally commit war crimes it is somehow equivalent to the actions of the Axis. That is dangerous rhetoric to put everything on a middle ground fallacy, and it is what I am referring to when I write this sort of post.

@greenteakitten said

You are purposefully focusing on the wrong thing here. (...)-- the point isn't to boast and you know that.

So you read minds?

So, are we going to read through what I was responding to in this thread?

To be perfectly honest, I haven't read the majority of posts in this thread. I usually read either the shorter ones, or those from users I know I can expect to come up with intelligent, well thought up posts. You will notice that in the present thread, I only replied to you, clousems, and tpr.

But yeah from the little I have read, this Rage person seems to have a pretty messed up and naive view of the history of WWII.

the US is big and has an equally big presence on the Internet.

I don't believe that's a sufficient explanation. The US is not the only big country. India is big too, for instance.

@nomen-nudum

So you read minds?

Judging by the way you quoted that paragraph, I'm guessing you didn't get the point ;)

I have no qualms with people disagreeing with my views. I don't expect 100% approval rate for what I say. However -- you can't call what I say diabolical while ignoring the fact that it is a response to more diabolical posts. I obviously would not write such a rant if someone wanted to talk about Trump or what not. It is clearly directed; missing that is what is causing the fundamental misunderstanding here.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't read the majority of posts in this thread.

That's fine; I just don't think you should respond to what I say without the context surrounding it -- I clearly reference it so this isn't a case of me forcing you down a rabbit hunt to decode some mystery intentions.

I don't believe that's a sufficient explanation. The US is not the only big country. India is big too, for instance.

Yes, big isn't sufficient explanation. India gets hate and also is large. That's why the rest of my argument was (I'll try to cut it down):

You have a handful of Americans who choose to be absolute AHs online and they get screenshotted everywhere and go viral. Then you have the idiots also going viral for their stupidity(...)and we all see that. We recognize that we have many issues that need reform. And as a result, jokes or jabs at our expense feel deserved. But at a certain point -- if someone is saying things about America and Americans that they would not if role reversal to other countries -- you have to ask yourself, is this really criticism in good faith anymore? (...) Just because something is true doesn't mean it needs to be weaponized as a pawn in arguments, if you get what I mean. Additionally -- and I think I covered this above as well -- American defenders are increasingly exclusively white racist conservatives who probably hold membership in the KKK. That makes it really difficult for the layperson to say anything positive without being associated with them as well, which creates a cycle where those white racist conservatives point to what other people say and go "see? I was right! We are justified to do what we do because other people hate on America!" which only exacerbates the problem, and then less people want to speak up when they see something problematic, etc.

Anyhow, I'm out; we can agree to disagree. I just have a problem with people hyperfixating on bits and pieces of my points while ignoring the broader context. Like c'mon, we don't need to go for the low hanging fruit here -- legitimate discussion is far better imho.