• Cagi@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Americans didn’t join WWII for Europe, almost everyone was staunchly against joining the war before Pearl Harbour, letting Europe and Asia sort out their own problems. They were reluctant after so many died in WWI just to save European empires from other European empires. This just seemed like more of that at the time. Then Japan and Germany declared war on the US, obliging them to fight. Otherwise the people were ready to watch Europe get taken over by Hitler.

    That said, the US Government had already decided they had to join the war for self preservation and were working on a way to start to convince people when Japan attacked. That really did the US war effort a lot of favours.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Joining the war earlier would have gotten in the way of profiteering off both sides in the war.

    • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Good call to share the military parts to few European countries and the US (while Trumpnis not in power) - too may leaders in bed with Putin to risk sharing specifics with them

    • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      2 months ago

      As European, I think we should work towards being less dependant on USA when it comes to many things not only defense.

      Europe shouldn’t depend on USA to defend us. NATO shouldn’t depend on a single country

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        2 months ago

        More specifically, I would LOVE if the long term dynamic became more of equal partnership and division of concerns - up to and including mutual basing agreements on BOTH sides of the pond.

        We have Ramstein and Incirlik and Lakenheath and a bunch of others; maybe it makes sense for the EU to have a few disused bases in the US too - some joint, some just for them. Something in Texas, Alaska, somewhere in the PNW, East coast somewhere, Florida, and Guam would make a lot of sense, I think, even if (outside of Guam and Alaska, for somewhat obvious reasons), I would think they’d be largely training focused - but I think that sort of thing would be extremely helpful in terms of strengthening the alliance, and making the EU as a whole a much more obviously equal partner.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 months ago

          The only valuable US territory for EU nations to host troops would be Alaska and the Pacific territories, and Alaska would be the only decent location for European defense. Any other locations would only be useful for power projection, in which the EU seems rather disinterested in.

          That said, the US hosts a lot of training centers for EU troops, including hosting a ton of pilot training schools. So there are a lot of EU troops in the US, they are just on American bases.

          • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Any other locations would only be useful for power projection, in which the EU seems rather disinterested in.

            Maybe the French? That said, the EU is not directly benefiting from the petrodollar, so there’s no point in playing world police American style.

    • NoiseColor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s the official stance of everybody really.

      Unofficially : US doesn’t really want that because that would significantly reduce their diplomatic influence and weapons sales. European nations don’t want it, because of responsibility, it would be expensive and we would end up with a lot of armed nations that don’t really like each other that much.

      So, it’s really beneficial for everyone that it stays like it is.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        Unofficially : US doesn’t really want that because that would significantly reduce their diplomatic influence

        The US has been pushing a lot of it behind the scenes for several Presidents. As the world’s economy becomes more equal, the US can’t afford being the only country providing the bulk of defense. There have been some minor disagreements on coordination, but I feel like these disagreements have been inflated.