250
Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
250 points (97.3% liked)
United Kingdom
4929 readers
263 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Just a reminder that it took the US years to join the Second World War while the UK was pounded by the Nazis. Canada joined the war nine days after it began. Remember who your friends are. The US isn't anyone's friend but it's own.
Hijacking this post to say: there are too many Americans in this thread arguing about the second world war, somehow apparently suggesting the US is not an untrustable former ally, now ally of Russian oligarchs and strongmen, rather than the important story itself.
Why not shut the fuck up if you don't have anything relevant to say?
That's not really a fair comparison, Canada wasn't a fully independent country in 1939, they were still a dominion of the British empire with foreign policy set from London (though otherwise self ruling).
Then why did it take 9 days?
Four days after the United Kingdom had declared war on 3 September 1939, Parliament was called in special session and both King and Manion stated their support for Canada following Britain, but did not declare war immediately, partly to show that Canada was joining out of her own initiative and was not obligated to go to war.
Also from the link:
Canada did not intend to get involved to the extent they did at the start. That changed after the Battle of Dieppe in 1942, along with other events.
Canada entered the was 9 days after it started. The US entered the war 820 days later.
Canada went and fought while the US sat and watched.
Not true at all. You should maybe crack a history book.
Post-WWI the US people wanted to be less involved in world affairs. Congress prevented the country from joining the League of Nations.
Then when WWII broke out I'd imagine there was not a lot of stomach for it. You know, since they had just been involved in a similar war a little over 2 decades before.
To say they did nothing shows your ignorance. Before officially entering the war, the US provided substantial aid to the Allied powers, particularly Great Britain.
Why should the US, in 1939, have declared war?
Canada, 9 days.
US, 829 days.
For those 820 days the rest of the world, including Canada, was sending its young men to fight and die for freedom.
The US sat and watched.
More false information. Let's see who entered WWII at, or after December, 1941.
Sure looks like most of the western hemisphere didn't join until after the war came to their part of the world.
I wonder who remained neutral?
Any other lies you'd like to tell?
This is a super weird deflection and it should be called out.
The person I responded to made a claim that everyone else in the world was fighting in WWII but not the US.
Thats simply not true.
Your list is full of fucking holes. The Philippines was a US colony before Japan invaded, Spain was fascist and assisted the fascist, Switzerland played both sides by moving money, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were occupied by the fucking Soviets and you Americans did not say shit about it and sold them off after the war.
The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, jointly declared their neutrality on 18 November 1938, in Riga, at the Conference of Baltic Foreign Ministers with their respective parliaments passing neutrality laws later that year. Despite that, all of them were occupied twice by the Soviet Union and once by Nazi Germany.
Spain, whose civil war had just ended at the beginning of World War II, sent troops to the Russian front to help German armed forces. I don't think they ever declared war.
Nazis purchased critical war material from neutral countries using Swiss francs gained in exchange for gold looted by the Nazis from occupied countries and from individual victims of concentration camps. Switzerland continued to trade until the end of the war in 1945.
The Phillipines was attacked 9 hours after Pearl Harbor on 12/7 and did not declare war but was drawn into it as a result of the attack. The US declared war on 12/8 and had war declared back on 12/11.
829 days.
And they had to be dragged into it by the japanese
Bombed into it.
Fuck America
You know the American hegemony people from Europe seem to be quick to complain about these days? That's directly related to the US joining in WWII.
The US was largely isolationist though starting to change during that time. That changed drastically after WWII for multiple reasons.
You know NATO? The thing the US dumps money and resources into? That didn't exist then but the League of Nations did. You know who wasn't a part of the League of Nations? The US.
Maybe, but the cherry picked example you're trying to use looks mighty different in context.
Cherry picked? 9 days versus 829 days. Cherry pick my ass.
Can you articulate why, with what they knew in 1939, the US should have declared war and not after they were directly attacked?
It baffles me how you don't see the hypocrisy of both complaining about the US not joining WWII until they were directly attacked and also complaining about American hegemony today.
There is nothing to be baffled by. You're just misrepresenting the argument.
It's only baffling if you assume ab initio that the only possible kind of intervention is the imperialist, hegemonic one, and that that is the only way of describing the country's (or any other Allied country for that matter) entry into WW2. More generally, its only baffling if you assume that involvement naturally equates to "hegemony", and the behavior that implies, in the long-term. This viewpoint totally negates the normative side of the exercise of power which is why it has been all but abondoned by contemporary IR scholars, political scientists, sociologists, etc.
In short, you misrepresent (deliberately or otherwise) your opponent's argument by assuming that all exercise of power is "hegemonic", an assertion that is not grounded in reality. At this point, you should also be able to see the moral issues with some of what you said and the overall image you presented of the human condition. Classical geopolitical thinking is simply not valid and tends to reproduce highly unstable and dangerous systems by ignorant human who reify it into reality.
Sure (and you too should be able to - its real simple). It starts with an f and ends with a ascism. Though I'll give you that policy analysts at the USDOS at the time didn't see it in those terms. I'm also willing to bet they knew a lot more than you think you know but do let me know if you think I'm wrong.
That articulate enough for you?
It's plenty articulate but wrong on both accounts. It's hypocrisy to criticize (wrongly in OPs case) the US for not involving themselves fast enough in one breath and then criticize the US for being "world police" in the next.
Especially considering what the landscape might have looked like had the US remained on its isolationist track and not joined the war.
As for articulating why, with what they knew in 1939, the US should have declared war; you typed a lot but failed at the task. You say fascism like it carried the weight in 1939 that it does today. Fascism rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe. Hmm, wonder who that was.
Swing and a miss!
You obviously didn't read or understand a thing I wrote. If you did, you wouldn't have simply doubledowned on the same fallacies and false assumptions.
But let's be real - this isn't about assessing what's true and what's not. Its about individual psychology and our desperate need for self-affirmation to build confidence. It's part of the reason why you'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over, regardless of evidence, regardless of substance, regardless of logic, ultimately abondoning any notion of intellectual honesty.
Once you adopt that whole mentality, you cannot be reasoned with on the rational level, which is why some compare it to a mild psychiatric disorder. And looking around what's been happening with communities around the world vis-a-vis the media they consume, it's easy to understand why. This usually occurs after about 5 to 10 years of consuming a certain type of content. I honestly hope you're not at that point. I always like giving people the benefit of the doubt. In this case, I basically kinda assume you're relatively young. Which is good, if that's the case.
Best of luck to you on your journey. Don't stop resisting the ego. Never stop resisting the ego. The most important fight is the one inside our head.
Edit: You're next message is going to completely ignore (and thus reject) any of what I said and probably contain quite a bit of ad hominem and doubling down.
For 829 days the US sat and watched.
At the time the prevalent belief initially was that the mighty British empire, together with the French, would beat back the Germans and Italians. Remember that these countries had fought a destructive war already which an at the time more powerful German empire lost. US sentiment also was against direct involvement in the war, and many in cabinet were more concerned with the rising threat to their west: Japan.
That's not to say the US did nothing. The US supplied China via the Burma road agains the Japanese, supplied the Allies with arms and they also did the destroyers-for-bases deal. The US also held their first peacetime draft in 1940, well before it officially entered the war.
At the time, the belief was that the US would have to defend the west (against Japan) and that the UK could defeat the Germans. It's why the US moves the fleet to Hawaii, to hopefully pressure the Japanese into backing down.
The US had both domestic and geopolitical reasons to not declare war immediately. It's fair to criticize that, but to characterize the US as doing nothing in that time is just a falsification of history.
I didn't think you could.
I've been around long enough that I recognize bad faith and fallacious arguments, pedantism, and particularly expressions of Danth's Law and choose not to take the bait. I stay on message which was that it was obvious to the UK who their true and trustworthy friends were (for example Canada which joined the Second World War 9 days after its outbreak and sent young men to fight to stop the spread of fascism and defend Britain) and weren't (for example the US which sat on its hands for 829 days while Europe burned) as it should be today. It should be horrifying (but not at all surprising) to the UK, and to the rest of the free world, to see that fascism has taken hold in the US.
829 days. Canada was there for 820 of those 829 days.
I'll let prime minister Neville Chamberlain do so.
"We and France are to-day, in fulfillment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack upon her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace, but a situation in which no word given by Germany's ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe had become intolerable."
That explains the UK and France since France and the United Kingdom were the two dominant players in world affairs and in League of Nations affairs, and usually were in agreement.
However, the US was not part of the League of Nations, had not been attacked, had adopted an isolationist approach to foreign policy between WW1 and WW2 and had already fought in one European war. There was no UN, no NATO, no mutual defense agreements like exist today because WW2 was the catalyst for many of those things.
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” – attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Yes. We know why the US didn't join initially. I (Neville) was answering why they should have done.
No, he's not. Your quote is from a radio broadcast on September 3, 1939 where Chamberlain was speaking about England and France declaring war.
Note, this is also the same Chamberlain who made a speech in 1938 after signing the Munich agreement where he said, “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time….”; The speech would later seal Chamberlain’s reputation as the chief architect of appeasement..
What I'm gathering is that everyone here seems to think the US had some moral obligation to declare war earlier, which is easy to say in retrospect but history doesn't support that idea when viewed in situ.
The US should have been part of the League of Nations. It was cowardly not to have been.
If it were moral for England and France to enter into war, then why would it not moral for the US?
Maybe they should, Wilson certainly wanted
them to. Whether it was "cowardly" is entirely opinion based.
The US did not join the League of Nations primarily due to strong opposition within the Senate and a prevailing isolationist sentiment in the country. Concerns about the League's potential impact on US sovereignty and the entangling of the US in foreign conflicts, particularly in Europe, fueled this opposition.
Looking back at it now or in 1939? I'm not arguing morality because that's the problem. Knowing what the world knows today it's easy to say it was moral to declare war, but if the Allies were looking for help at the start of the war, why did they not share information about the concentration camps to spur others into action? Maybe because nobody knew in the beginning?
Taking a 1939 perspective? I would say that if the prevailing sentiment among Americans was isolationism, is it not moral for the elected representatives to work in the interests of their constituency.
We're talking about people in a country half a world away, that is only a few years removed from the Great Depression, with the memory of fighting another war in Europe fresh in their memories.
Remember, in the 1930s people in the US had virtually no televisions or 24/7 tv news, only about 1/3 of homes had telephones. The world is very different now than it was 90 years ago.
Your opinion might be that the US "sat and watched for 820 days" but that's rubbish. It's not supported by the facts or history.
An American could have the opinion that WWII occurred because Neville Chamberlain, the UK, France and the rest of the League failed to appropriately address the threat prior to 1939. Guess what? The facts and history don't bear that out either.
The original question was should the US have entered in 1939. That word implies a moral perspective.
The US was isolationist, but should it have been. Should any country be? (Draw your own historical parallels to today).
America shouldn't be the world police, but it should help resource a world police force. And to be fair, the US did provide a huge amount of non military resources to Europe throughout WWII.
Should verb
I can assure you, since it was my question, that should was used in reference to obligation or duty. So while it can be referencing correctness (morality), it wasn't.
Assuming your asking about correctness then that would depend on the person answering's opinion and when they are answering from. Again, it is easy to say now, with access to all the information post-event but, clearly, in 1939 the reigning belief of the US population seems to have been "no".
Here we agree, mostly. America also contributed 407,316 lives of its soldiers and 671,278 injuries to others.
I myself wonder if American hegemony would exist today if they had entered the war in 1939.
A large part of both the rise of America as a world power and world police role came about initially because of the war.
Between a form of legal profiteering in lend/lease, the huge industry boom during and post-war and the fact that Europe faced so much destruction and needed a lot of rebuilding, America's rise came about. Then, rather quickly after I'd say, the perversion of their role began into what it is today.
In my opinion, America should have worked to withdraw over time and let their allies take over the "policing" role in their areas of concern, or actually allow NATO to work as intended.
Edit: On a separate note, I appreciate the civil discourse and conversation. I am well aware of the faults America has, they are many.
Technically, the USA was not directly attacked. Hawaii and Philippines were US colonies. The situation in the Philippines was worse, and it was not mentioned in FDR's speech while they were getting pounded by the Japanese.
No?
During the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941, the USS Arizona (BB-39) and the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) were sunk. The Arizona, a battleship, exploded and sank after a bomb hit a powder magazine, resulting in the deaths of over 1,177 officers and crewmen. The Oklahoma was sunk by multiple torpedoes, causing it to capsize and resulting in the loss of 429 crew members.
That sure seems like an attack on America.
The US joined the war in Europe as a war on USSR. To limit their gains. Colonizing the western part.