blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:49:12 -0500, Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> > Dave Smith > wrote in
news:4a245829$0$31514
> > :
> >
> >> The US does not have a great record in winning wars single
> >> handed. Sure they have done well with coalitions, and did help to turn
> >> the tide during two world wars that they tried to sit out.
> >
> > Indeed, their record on both WWI and WWII is nothing short of blindingly
> > self-interested until Dec 9 41 when Hitler declared war on them. Had he
> > not done that, Canadians would have had to save Europe all on their own.
>
> ...and possibly done so without beating their chests about for sixty years
> afterward.


Thing is, the war changed the US *titanically*. In 1940 we were like 20th
in the world in military power, behind places like Belgium and Portugal. In
1945 we were - and remain - *first* in military might...and economic might.

Pre - WWII we were isolationist. Afterwards we were thrust - and somewhat
reluctanctly - into a position of world leadership and influence.and we are
still there...

Unlike the French and the British and other former great powers we are
pretty lousy at playing the game of "empire"...we lack the stomach to attend
to the real tasks of committing to the "ruling" of far - away places. One
of the reasons we are somewhat "at sea" in Iraq and Afghanistan...

We occupied Germany and Japan and within a decade we sent them on their way,
as nation - states they are models of success. Of course we had defeated
them totally in war, they weren't engaged in intercinine ethnic conflicts,
and they were advanced industrial nations, in Germany's case they were a
cradle of Western civilisation...

All that said, the US has a right to be proud of what we did during WWII,
but we need to acknowledge what others did, too...

Michel up there with his comment on us getting "late" into the war forgets
that there was a ***STRONG*** anti-war and isolationist sentiment amongst
the US populace and this was reflected in our leadership, most of whom would
have been perfectly happy to let the Europeans fight it out amongst
themselves. There was even something of a lingering anti-UK feeling in many
quarters, FDR had to really work at even getting Lend-Lease passed. So
practically speaking, there was simply no way we were going to get into the
war without our being directly attacked. We should not have been shocked by
Pearl Harbor, but we have the luxury of hindsight...those at the time did
not.


--
Best
Greg