The US military intervention came extremely late and essentially only had the (deliberate) effect of saving European fascism from itself so it could be preserved for future use. Germany was not denazified (in fact, the opposite), and German fascism is right on the cusp of becoming overt again.
You are literally the only person here who has said this. The point is that US intervention did not go well for Germany because its primary effect was to protect Nazis from consequences. This is an ice-cold take, the Americans didn’t go into Europe for charity, they went into Europe extremely late to prevent the USSR from liberating it themselves and proceeded to protect and empower fascists all over the world.
Was the liberation of Ukraine also a net negative since it seems to be teeming with Banderites?
Ukraine was liberated by the USSR, the Banderites are a cancer that was cultivated for the entire cold war in the Ukrainian diaspora by the CIA before being reintroduced into Ukraine in the 90s. In other words, another example of US intervention in WW2 Europe acting to protect and empower fascism.
If your argument is that the main contribution of US intervention in WW2 was to safeguard the nazis, I don’t know what to say. Keep your idealistic ass posting I guess. I’m done.
The main purpose and effect of the military intervention the US undertook near the end of the war in western Europe was to preserve capitalism in Europe, which required them to shelter and preserve fascism. Had they not intervened, Europe would have “fallen” to socialism. Therefore, the net effect was the protection of fascism in Europe. You can tell this because of all the actions they undertook to preserve fascism and put fascists into positions of power after the war. The point isn’t that they didn’t fight the nazis, the point is that they fought them to preserve capitalism, and therefore preserved fascism. We can agree to disagree.
The US military intervention came extremely late and essentially only had the (deliberate) effect of saving European fascism from itself so it could be preserved for future use. Germany was not denazified (in fact, the opposite), and German fascism is right on the cusp of becoming overt again.
So, current Germany is worse than Nazi Germany because it may one day become as bad as Nazi Germany again (some 80 years later).
Was the liberation of Ukraine also a net negative since it seems to be teeming with Banderites?
You are literally the only person here who has said this. The point is that US intervention did not go well for Germany because its primary effect was to protect Nazis from consequences. This is an ice-cold take, the Americans didn’t go into Europe for charity, they went into Europe extremely late to prevent the USSR from liberating it themselves and proceeded to protect and empower fascists all over the world.
Ukraine was liberated by the USSR, the Banderites are a cancer that was cultivated for the entire cold war in the Ukrainian diaspora by the CIA before being reintroduced into Ukraine in the 90s. In other words, another example of US intervention in WW2 Europe acting to protect and empower fascism.
If your argument is that the main contribution of US intervention in WW2 was to safeguard the nazis, I don’t know what to say. Keep your idealistic ass posting I guess. I’m done.
The main purpose and effect of the military intervention the US undertook near the end of the war in western Europe was to preserve capitalism in Europe, which required them to shelter and preserve fascism. Had they not intervened, Europe would have “fallen” to socialism. Therefore, the net effect was the protection of fascism in Europe. You can tell this because of all the actions they undertook to preserve fascism and put fascists into positions of power after the war. The point isn’t that they didn’t fight the nazis, the point is that they fought them to preserve capitalism, and therefore preserved fascism. We can agree to disagree.