It was a curious coalition of the far right and the far left; the latter was mainly faithful Communists who followed the party line from Moscow, whatever it currently happened to be.

On the other hand, the leaders of people (whether self-selected or otherwise), in developing the goals of statehood and power, soon discover that there are many reasons for war, that citizens may be unsympathetic to, that in fact may disregard the issue of the citizen's safety altogether - territorial gain, tributary/resource/financial gain, and many other such goals which seem good, perhaps even necessary, to them. Your account above simply shows that the leaders in charge of the US at that time were no more averse to allowing their own citizens to be put in harm's way in order to "help" them to feel endangered enough to want to go to war than those of any other country. Such it has always been.

But this:

You need to stop blaming the "gubermint" for our problems, and start accepting the flaw might lie in your fellow citizens, who, despite being anti-Semtic, racist, misogynistic, in favor of violence for disciplining children, and amused by animal torture, still managed to recognize that fascism would be worse.

is just a load of what I was shoveling onto my vegetable patch this morning...if you don't mind me saying so.

There is only one government I can criticize (not blame - you will notice my criticisms are always framed with the word "we" and "our"), as it is my own government. (Actually there are two - I am a member of the US polity by virtue of birth and of the Irish polity by virtue of marriage). A constitutional democracy is not about electing leaders and then shutting up forever. Those leaders have a duty to represent us. And the citizens, likewise, have an absolute right and a duty, to kick up a stink when they mis-represent us. That's how it works. If my government pursues a vengeful and bloody massacre in Fallujah, just for example, or if they steal someone off a street and "disappear" them somewhere to be tortured, they do it in my name, and it reflects on me. Therefore, I have every right, and in fact, an obligation to criticise and remind them they govern only with the consent of the ordinary citizens (of whom I am one).

Also, your "what we got" is "better than fascism" is a false dichotomy. These are not the only two alternatives...

"or have some special piece of information that the rest of us aren't privy too"
No.

"i'm not sure if you have a better grasp of the history of WWII than I do or something,"
Apparently, yes. :D

I strongly suggest you get a copy of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." It is as unique a piece of writing as Thuycide's "History of the Peleponesian War," both pieces being written by a person who was "there for the whole of the war." It is one of the best history stories ever written, and will not only serve as an education on WWII but on the immutability of human nature.

Scotlyn
"our initial involvement in the war was a direct response to an attack on us"

We provoked the Germans mercilessly with constant supplies to Britain, and we forced the Japanese to declare war by cutting off their supplies of oil. These events were done to provoke an attack, because our leaders of the time felt that sacrificing a few hundred thousand soldiers would be better than living with a Nazified Europe for the next 1,000 years. Perhaps you disagree with their judgment.

Our government wanted to enter WWII earlier, and was only held back the by dissent of a pacifistic citizenry. In other words, the passivity that you are currently decrying was a direct result of people like you. I'm not objecting to pacifism; I'm objecting to hypocrisy.

You have consistently underestimated the power of the American people. Throughout our history, we have, by and large, got exactly the government we deserved, wanted, and voted for. Now that government and its policies may not particularly please you, as an individual, but that's the thing about democracy.

You need to stop blaming the "gubermint" for our problems, and start accepting the flaw might lie in your fellow citizens, who, despite being anti-Semtic, racist, misogynistic, in favor of violence for disciplining children, and amused by animal torture, still managed to recognize that fascism would be worse.

Good summation. Also of note is that fact that Roosevelt and the US military leaders spent two days wondering how it was that they would be able to declare war against Germany in the absense of a German attack -- there is no mention of Germany, or Italy, in the "Day of Infamy" speech. Of course, Hitler alleviated those concerns by declaring war on us on 10 Dec.

PS. My original comment was also aimed at the American hubris that pretends we were the only people fighting against Hitler. If we had not joined the effort, the war would certainly have been fought, although against far greater odds.

Even if, by some stroke of bizarre alternate history, it were possible for us to sit out WWII, the notion that we should have stayed on sidelines while Hitler committed genocide is just... boggling

Yahzi, I appreciate the statement I made was easily misunderstood - my apologies. I was not giving you a "should have been" but a genuine "might have been." When Britain began to fight against Hitler's Nazi regime, the Americans did not immediately jump in. There was a fair bit of sympathy for the "it's not our problem viewpoint, that is, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour - a direct threat. Obviously you can never speculate after the fact as to what might have happened if what did happen didn't, nevertheless, it is a fact that our initial involvement in the war was a direct response to an attack on us (and in my opinion that is a legitimate reason to go to war - ie defense.) If the Japanese had attacked us, would we have delayed our entry into the European war much later, or not at all?

And, as it happened, there were some very good reasons to fight against Hitler, not least to rescue the people in concentration camps, just to quote one example. But it's fairly clear that these were not the reasons that persuaded our masters and betters to finally join the war, although they provided a convenient story to tell ourselves after the war. During the war, we were not particularly welcoming to refugees from Germany, just for one example, and in the Pacific, we had built up a huge amount of self interest that had to be preserved at all costs.

I'm not sure if you are joking here, or have some special piece of information that the rest of us aren't privy too... But isn't it widely known and accepted that the US refused to actually enter WWII until they were attacked in pearl harbour?
The war started on September 1 1939 and the US refused to fight untill pearl harbour was bombed on December 7 1941. So basically the US sat by and watched 2 years of genocide and did nothing but place trade embargos on Japan.

As I said, i'm not sure if you have a better grasp of the history of WWII than I do or something, but I'm pretty sure that sitting on the sidelines for 40% of a genocidal war and then only joining in once your own country is attacked could be equated to a "war passing the US by had the Japanese not threatened a US Pacific hegemony".

You have some good points, but when I got to this line - "World War II might have passed us by" - I simply could not take anything else you said seriously.

Even if, by some stroke of bizarre alternate history, it were possible for us to sit out WWII, the notion that we should have stayed on sidelines while Hitler committed genocide is just... boggling.

The solution to this problem is to stop presenting things as simplistic and ideological. Like, for instance, asserting that all defense spending is a waste, out of citizen's control, and a moral crime. Some defense spending is necessary, and until people can present reasoned, rational arguments, rather than blanket statements, we're not going to get any closer to the right level of defense spending.

You are absolutely right here about trying to get away from ideology and think rationally about the problem. To think rationally you need to begin by naming things more precisely. If you consider it necessary to kill people in order to achieve positive social change, it doesn't help to cloak that rationale under a euphemism like "destroying social institutions."

Likewise, it would help any rational discussion to distinguish carefully between what is truly necessary for our "defense" and what is actually only necessary in order to overcome the defenses of others. We do not really need to have a military base in more than half the countries in the world to defend ourselves. A strong shield around and within our own territory should be an elegant sufficiency.

We also need to be able to rationally distinguish between those enemies who are actually determined to threaten, invade or destroy us, and those who are simply reacting to the threat we pose to them.

Finally, yes, the American revolution was violent, so was the Second World War. However, what brought about the possibility of the American constitutional democratic experiment was not the war, it was the long process of discourse, social experiment, etc that culminated in the Constitutional Assembly.

World War II might have passed us by, had the Japanese not threatened our Pacific hegemony, which we gained through various previous military adventures including those in the Phillipines in the 1890's. We manifestly did not enter it with any intention to plant democracy in either country, but found it useful to encourage that story line after the fact. (Ditto Iraq) The Marshall Plan was a truly inspired civilian response to post-war chaos, that apparently learned the lessons from the failed humiliation of Germany in the Versailles treaty that concluded World War I. Neither outcome was a necessary consequence of war, or violence as such.

Finally, the control that citizens and taxpayers exercise over the purchase of weapons is really so miniscule as to be non-existent. This is not an ideological statement. No matter what way the arms market is set up, almost anyone who takes a good look at it becomes horrified by the obscene profits involved, while being largely unable to do anything about it, because most actual transactions take place behind a thick veil of secrecy and far from any actual oversight on behalf of the taxpayer's/citizen's interest.

You didn't get the point of my post. The arms market is the way it is precisely because the taxpayers demanded it be that way, because they were horrified by "obscene profits.". Just as taxpayers voted for mandatory hospital care while voting against universal health insurance, because they were horrified by hospitals turning people away but unwilling to actually pay for it (and now they pay for it through obscene hospital bills). Taxpayers don't always choose what is in their best interest because they are often swayed by simplistic ideological arguments.

The solution to this problem is to stop presenting things as simplistic and ideological. Like, for instance, asserting that all defense spending is a waste, out of citizen's control, and a moral crime. Some defense spending is necessary, and until people can present reasoned, rational arguments, rather than blanket statements, we're not going to get any closer to the right level of defense spending.