What was the geopolitcal intention of the US in joining WWII (not the usual pearl harbor thing)?
I've hard because they didnt want a single power to control Eurasia because it would be a threat to the us, but is true and why?
And what was their geopolitical intention after the war ended?
I've heard people say they created a new world order based on rules and institutions made by them etc but is it true?
The intention being is that Japan attacked them outright at pearl harbour, and Nazi Germany declared war on the USA.
Yes but even after that it doesnt mean you have to commit yourself to such a huge war unless you have an interest in doing so, and the things you said arent enough to justify such an action
someone declares war on you, you give them all you have, that's your honor and duty as a nation and a people
besides, shooting nazis was fun, not often you get a war with a clear villain
>It is a theater of that vast war about which comparatively little has been written and about which most Americans know even less. We think of ourselves as having been almost impregnable during the war, separated from the Axis enemy by the Atlantic and Pacific, the one terrible exception being the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But in fact we were under direct and repeated attack as U-boats sank merchantmen in the Atlantic: “From mid-January [1942] to late June,” Offley writes, “the U-boats rampaged practically unopposed along the East Coast, sinking 226 Allied merchant ships totaling 1,251,650 gross registered tons.”
>All told, 733 American cargo ships were lost[31] and 8,651 of the 215,000 who served perished in troubled waters and off enemy shores.
Because having Europe being run by stable Liberal free markets is important to American stability. The USA in the 1940s realised isolationism wouldn't work for the world's largest economy built on exports.
Institutions created after the war like the IMF, UN, Bretton Woods, and NATO were built to secure this.
Isolationism was doomed to fail because the government desperately wanted to be involved in the war, despite the people being against.
They knew that cutting trade with Japan would risk war but went ahead with it anyways. Pretty clear that Roosevelt was hoping Japan would be stupid enough to attack so he could get the American public on his side.
>despite the people being against.
Utter meme. Go look up actual polling from the era. Isolationism starts to fade rapidly by the time France falls. By the end of 1941, you're seeing 60-70% majorities favoring entering the war in some capacity or other, depending on how the question is phrased.
Yet we still needed an unprovoked attack before the government had the courage to declare war.
>despite the people being against
Polling shows that the population did not remotely believe in 'peace at any price'.
>cutting trade with Japan
In particular, letting them wreck whatever they wanted to for the sake of 'preserving' peace was inane.
>In particular, letting them wreck whatever they wanted to for the sake of 'preserving' peace was inane.
Why should the average American care if they wreck China or decaying European colonies?
The debates in these threads always remind me of characters in Mission to Moscow.
?t=160
The US had extensive trade/financial interests in China, and in the various European countries. Prior to the war, the Dutch East Indies was the main global source of rubber.
A triumphant Japan would have the natural resource and human capital levels (and the morale) to make a play for mastery over the entirety of the Pacific.
Sitting back as various power-hungry dictatorships carved up the world, hoping that they'll leave you alone, is a terrible idea. Everyone in Europe who tried that came to grief.
>being unjustly attacked while your guard is down while another person says they will kick your ass too doesn't justify you to fight back.
God you zoomers have been raised into pussies.
If Germany didn't want war with the United States they shouldn't have declared war on them. Diplomacy doesn't work when you declare war. This isn't a fricking video game.
Its not being a pussy or not, a state doesnt behave like a guy who's having an argument at a party and has to boost his ego
A state has a reputation and morals to uphold just like a person, even if only to keep the support of the populace and respect of other states. Better to send a strong message that you will retaliate to attacks rather than just take it hoping for peace.
Also, sometimes people just do irrational things based off of emotion. Look at 9/11 for a recent example. U.S. gets attacked, people lose their shit, enter a war, etc.
Part of statecraft is establishing terms, conditions, and consequences.
Every major country with any actual semblance of power projection establishes that if you attack that country, you will be struck back with force.
If Japan attacks a country without any consequences, as in the US backs down and can't impose any meaningful actions or retaliation on Japan, then everyone will know the US will tolerate attacks on its territory and it won't do shit. It's basics international relations 101.
It's not a frat boy party co-op, it's saying "if you frick me, then I will frick you up - but you wanna talk and trade then yeah we can do that until the first punch is thrown. Then I'm kicking your ass."
You don't take a black eye in a room full of people watching your every move, get up and go "so anyways, how about that oil embargo?" You've ruined your international reputation and no one will respect or negotiate with you because you've established (1) you're unwilling or unable to protect your territory/assets and (2) your word and threats means shit all.
homie geopolitics is not the same as your weekend frat parties
Losing at beer pong ≠ Suffering an unprovoked attack from a hostile foreign nation costing you thousands of military personnel, hundreds of aircraft, and dozens of ships
>the things you said arent enough to justify such an action
What the ungodly hell are you talking about? Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war. The US was totally justified and committed to WW2.
Part of a government's responsibility is to defend its people, its territory. How fricking inept would the US government look if it didn't respond to Pearl Harbor, the largest attack on the US by a foreign entity since... god, probably the War of 1812? The people would literally riot and call for Roosevelt's head if he suggested anything short of unconditional surrender of the Japanese.
What was the alternative? Diplomacy? Diplomacy stops working the moment war is declared outside of hammering out POWs or terms of surrenders/ceasefire.
Seriously, what could Roosevelt have done after Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and Germany declares war that wouldn't make him look like a total buckbroken pussy on the world stage?
hitler declared war on international israelitery
the usa was (and is) ruled by israelites
its that simple
any country needs allies and trading partners in the outside world, hitler was a rabid dog you certainly couldn't reason with. if a rabid dog is eating all your allies and you have the power to do anything with it, you do it.
Geopolitically, the US liked having foreign bases, specifically in the Pacific. This helps secure sea lanes for shipping/trade, a goal similar shared by Britain. Trade is good, makes money, makes corporations and consumers happy. The US had huge demands for materials, and they needed shipping lanes to get them.
It was also clear that Nazi/facism was antithetical to free trade in the sense that you can't have functional capitalism by constant warmongering with all your trade partners and destroying potential markets. The Japanese were threatened by the British, and the Americans were close to the British ideologically/culturally/politically, and were concerned that it was inevitable that Americans would enter the war against Japan to prevent a potential hostile naval power from challenging US interests in the Pacific.
Hard to say how true the Japanese were. US was divided between Woodrow Wilson, League of Nations 'internationalist' who believed the US should take a more proactive foreign policy in advancing free trade, democracy, and self-determination. The other faction were 'isolationists', the faction of 'who gives a shit? let's mind our own business'. The isolationists enjoyed broad public support and US involvement in WW2 was extremely unpopular prior to Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor silenced the isolationist faction, at least for a while. However, after the war was over and the costs were made clear, the isolationist sentiment (pushed primarily by Midwestern Republicans but also broad general support) was to downsized the US military and go back to small government, isolationism again. Truman, bowing to pressure from his Democratic congressional allies and Republicans who were bipartisan isolationists, proceeds to do so.
Then China falls to communists, and suddenly everyone realizes "oh shit, it's happening AGAIN", and this ramps up to the Cold War. Which is a whole clusterfrick of politics itself.
What about Germany?
What about them?
Why the us hit to war in Europe too, since the post only mentioned japan
Because Germany declared war on the US
No, Judea declared war on Germany.
Sure thing bud. Da israelites and all that
Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. There was potential for debate on whether the US should go to war in Germany, but the Nazis/Hitler ended that discussion by declaring war on the US literally a day or 2 after, so the US declared war back in kind.
>nooo you cant just overthrow your shitty government made of thieves and landlords this is literally another holocaust
kek