[stcredzero]

Erm, then why did we hand over Poland and other Eastern European states to the USSR? Why did we let France re-establish their colonies in French-Indochina and elsewhere?

Those are clearly failures of human rights. In the current international legal framework, the United States holds sovereign power and grants human rights to its citizens. The United States can grant human rights to persons within its borders. It cannot do more than play international politics on behalf of people outside of it.

You're dramatically oversimplifying things in order to make this some kind of cosmic fight between good and evil. Stop forcing a narrative by cutting out all the bits that get in the way.

Sorry, but you're the one who is "forcing a narrative" here. You have defined the sides, such that all "sides" have crapped on human rights. It is possible that you want to define sides this way because you know that your "side" is morally compromised and has crapped on human rights. (And if you are a member of the far extreme left, there is a good chance that your "side" is morally compromised and of authoritarian bent.) You can instead define your sides to be the non-violent against the violent, or individual human rights against authoritarianism. I suggest you do this.

The USA is certainly not perfect. No sovereign nation that has ever existed has been perfect. This is why Free Speech is important, so that criticism can be levied against those in charge. This is why democracy is important, so that the voices of people can be heard and things can change, without further unnecessary violence. This is why genuine public discourse is vital, and why tactics of namecalling, shame, and intimidation are harmful -- it puts society in a position where "good" can only be accomplished by the commission of evil. Let us instead work towards a world where violence is no longer necessary.

[guildwriter]

I'm not advocating for a specific side and it's interesting that is the conclusion you instantly went to. I'm saying WW2 wasn't about a global fight of good versus evil or even about individual rights per se. Those were definitely parts of it, but saying that's the ideological basis is untrue.

> "Sorry, but you're the one who is "forcing a narrative" here. You have defined the sides, such that all "sides" have crapped on human rights."

I consider my views to be Independent, not left, right, or center. I don't think things can be boiled down to two subjects easily as there are often many more considerations that need to be made when making a decision on what to do. If I did have to advocate a side, my side would be in the interest of trying to talk about things in as complete a manner as possible. That means I generally try to resist boiling things down to dualistic evaluations.

I'm not arguing that all sides have crapped on human rights and that somehow invalidates the good actions of the USA. I'm saying that what you claim to be the ideological basis of the war is untrue. Doesn't mean that the war wasn't necessary and a good thing. If anything I'd make the argument that we really messed up the post war and betrayed a lot of people who were looking to us for help. I still consider it rather ironic how Ho Chi Minh was originally a supporter of democratic instutions and a friend of the US, until he decided the independence of his people mattered a lot more.

I think I can understand why you went to the conclusion that you did, but I don't think you're arguing against what you think you are.

[stcredzero]

I'm saying that what you claim to be the ideological basis of the war is untrue.

The ideological basis and the geopolitical basis are two entirely different things.

I still consider it rather ironic how Ho Chi Minh was originally a supporter of democratic instutions and a friend of the US, until he decided the independence of his people mattered a lot more.

That's a place where the USA really f'd up!

[guildwriter]

The ideological basis and the geopolitical basis are two entirely different things.

Geopolitics and ideology have to be considered hand in hand when making decisions at the scale that Roosevelt and Eisenhower did. Before Pearl Harbor, even though the general US populace knew what the Nazis were doing to some extent, even Lend-Lease was hugely controversial. It took a surprise attack on US soil to galvanize people into action. To me, I think survival of the US is a much easier sell as being the prime ideology. Everything else such as protection of rights and freedom were good partial truths. Otherwise things like the internment of the Japanese, rationing, censorship, propaganda, and so on become harder to explain.

Again, none of these encroachments take away from the rightness. I just think it's important to acknowledge that the ugly and the good and everything else can stand together all at once.

I think it's also worth mentioning that when I'm thinking of WW2, I'm also thinking of WW2 as a whole. Not just from a purely US centric perspective.

[stcredzero]

To me, I think survival of the US is a much easier sell as being the prime ideology.

Please don't confuse motivations with ideology. Ideology is a philosophical thing. Motivations can be ideological, but they can also be apart from ideology. Fighting "to preserve our way of life" is effectively an ideological call out. It certainly was in the 1930's and 1940's America.

To me, I think survival of the US is a much easier sell as being the prime ideology.

Fighting to protect your home is rather at a more basic level than the ideological basis of the USA, which is that of individual human rights on the English model. American GI's, German Wehrmacht, and Red Army soldiers -- all 3 of them were motivated by patriotic defense of the homeland. However, all 3 groups had widely differing ideologies.

Ideology needs special attention. Especially at times like this.

http://a.co/dzdh328