If America keeps doing bad things, why hasn't the world united to stop them? (1 Viewer)

[MrJoshua]

Over and over again, I keep coming across comments talking about the many bad things the USA has done throughout their history, what I don't understand is why hasn't the world united to stop them, just like how the Allied nations united to stop Germany and Japan during WW2?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

A valid question, MrJoshua, for which I have no immediate answer. However, when I look at the people speaking out against the USA, I have to also consider that some of them simply want to improve things rather than overthrow the country. Others out there make me wonder what their motives might be. I notice that a lot of people still try to enter the USA, legally or illegally, so at least some people disagree with those who put down the USA.

 

[Pat Hartman]

MrJoshua, make sure that you can tell the difference between opinion and fact when reading negative articles. For example, the left constantly rails about Trump's foreign policy. He's dangerous. He's going to start WWIII, He offends people. He's nice to Putin. We've never done it that way, etc. And here we are at the end of his first term and he's the first president in decades that hasn't started a war and he's trying very hard to end the existing "long" war. He's gotten other members of NATO and the UN and WHO paying close to their fair share and he's been nominated for not one but TWO Nobel Peace prizes!!!! Does it really matter that "we've never done it that way"? Trump's way is actually working to make us safer.

 

[June7]

How can you compare USA actions with genocide perpetrated by Nazis and other nations experiencing civil conflict? Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a major stain on U.S. history but at least we didn't start WWII (nor WWI). Without U.S. intervention Europe could have become a united Fascist superpower. No, USA is not perfect but it's better than most. Maybe we poke our noses into where we shouldn't but we're not the only ones. Espionage and meddling in other countries' affairs is practiced by all.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem like they were excessive but I've read a lot of history of the period and the final decision came down to - would the bombing of Hiroshima save lives in the long run and the answer was overwhelmingly yes. It would have saved Japanese lives as well as American lives if Japan had surrendered then. Nagasaki only happened because the Japanese didn't understand the message of Hiroshima. Even with the loss of both cities, the death toll was probably half what it would have otherwise been by an invasion of Japan. But the loss was more one-sided because of the second bomb.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

We also have to remember, Pat, that once we captured Okinawa and several other islands in the Ryukyu chain, we had air bases from which to fire-bomb Japan. Which we did. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragic, but they had less than the expected effect because those two cities were something like the 81st and 82nd Japanese cities to be bombed into ashes. We just used regular incendiaries on the other cities, which went up like matchsticks because their homes WERE thin wood and heavy paper. Eminently flammable. To them, "burned to ashes" was the same either way. They didn't catch on to the other perils until much later after the surrender.

Some people believe that the only reason Japan surrendered was that they had seen what happened to Germany when Russia had a chance to divide up the spoils of war. Russia declared war on Japan but never got troops into that theater of operation. Japan knew that if Russia were involved, their country would be split into pieces, perhaps never to be whole again. They surrendered to the USA in hopes that they could keep their country together and could keep Russia's mitts off of them.

They knew they would lose a protracted war right after the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Battle of Midway, and then the Battle of the Philippine Sea (a.k.a. "The Marianas Turkey Shoot.") The fall of Okinawa convinced them, but they were ready to apply the code of the bushido and die for their country. It was not the threat of death, but the thread of division of families, of lands, of resources - that is what finally pushed them over the edge.

 

[Isaac]

what I don't understand is why hasn't the world united to stop them, just like how the Allied nations united to stop United States stopped Germany and Japan during WW2?

I think you posted your own answer.
Alternate explanation: I guess "the world" must disagree with you, is what it would seem

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Isaac, I'm not sure if you were the one to alter MrJoshua's comment but it is not corrected in the original.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union - three allied nations - stopped Germany. The USA provided enough troops and materiel to push things along. However, if the Soviets had not fully engaged Germany on their Eastern front, the Wehrmacht would have been able to do significantly more damage on their Western front. Significant enough that we might not have been able to liberate Europe. I'm all for being supportive of the USA and will not say they had no contribution. Far from it. But the war in Europe was won by a coalition of nations who were willing to commit massive amounts of troops and materiel from multiple sources. This statement is a "credit where credit is due" sort of thing.

I do not condone what the Soviets did later and in fact some of their responses to German activities might have been right at the fringe of legality under the Geneva Conventions. Be that as it may, they seriously helped win the warn in Europe. To be honest, the British stopped Germany by winning the air war over London. That gave them time for us to get off our duffs and jump into the fracas. And at that time, we had a very big pile of anti-war sentiment in the USA.

It was actually the attack on Pearl Harbor that ended the war by bringing in a nation whose factories and resources were intact. If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, we might not have entered the war when we did. Now THAT would be a brutal what-if scenario to play out.

 

[Isaac]

Isaac, I'm not sure if you were the one to alter MrJoshua's comment but it is not corrected in the original.

Oh, yes, totally--I should have added a note to clarify. That was my meaning...to quote his post and make that edit myself.

Of course, I'm aware that the Allies were not just the United States. I was just making a point at how silly it is to, while in the process of trying to persuade that the US is a horrible country, to accidentally use (as an example of people who have stopped horrible things from happening), an instance where the US was also an instrumental part in stopping the horrible thing from happening.