[Muslim]

... why didn't they intervene to save the free world until their fleet got bombed?

[Goldberk]

shhhh your spoiling the myth of the war.

[Smilin' Dave]

Failure of chronology here. The US was not fully considered by anyone, least of the all its citizens, as a 'protector of the free world' till after WWII and the end of isolationism. The closest you get is perception is in particular strains of American exceptionalism, which for example portrayed America as a light to inspire 'old corrupt Europe'.

I would also point out to you the precursors of Lend-Lease and US sanctions against Japan's expansionism as signs that the US was not just sitting on its hands in the lead up to WWII.

[Truth-a-naut]

... why didn't they intervene to save the free world until their fleet got bombed?

There was the lend-lease (prior to '41) as well as that front corporation (forget the name) the US set up in the late 30's to help the Chinese fight Japan.

Seriously man, you could have done some research prior to posting this.

[Celtic Communism]

When did China become a part of the "free world"?

[Truth-a-naut]

Go away, I am not going to debate your attempts at derailing.

Or are you going to add anything besides emoticons?

[Syd]

Go away, I am not going to debate your attempts at derailing.

What the fuck?

When did China become a part of the "free world"?

Is this a serious question?

[Serinous]

When did China become a part of the "free world"?

When the US fleet got bombed, mainland China was under ROC regime, not CCP. To be exact, it was under Chiang Kai Shek, who was a friend of FDR. Only reason why US would help China at that time was because the Japanese invaded China. If US sided with Japan, it would be ironic wouldn't it?

[Celtic Communism]

Is this a serious question?

Yes it indeed is. Chiang only kept control of China through the arms of the military and alliances with warlords and Mao's communists at different times, he certainly was not a liberal democract ever, and China has never been a liberal democracy - what Americans usually include as part of the "free world".

[Smilin' Dave]

I've improved this thread by cutting the irrelevant ideological/ethnic baiting which added nothing to the topic. Continuation will result in warnings etc.

[Nattering Nabob]

Failure of chronology here. The US was not fully considered by anyone, least of the all its citizens, as a 'protector of the free world' till after WWII and the end of isolationism.

This is correct...that whole "protector of the free world" thing pretty much referred to protection from post WW2 Soviet Union...

[Igor Antunov]

We will invade you for your own protection = protector of the 'free' world.

[pugsville]

I think it's protector of the "Free ( as in trade, american profits that is) world". The US had a lot of trade interests in china and the worsening of US-japan relations that wound up with pearl harbour had a lot to do we Japan actually or (threatening) US commerical interests in China. US responded with trade sanctions which made Japan look elsewhere (Netherlands East Indies etc)

The US has never had a real problem supporting tyrants, and questionable regiemes as long as the US's finiancial interests were looked after. Many nations throughout history have put out justifications of "protection" for imperialist/hegemonistic actions. (The Japanse were protecting their fellow asians from the evil western imperialists.)

[Oxymoron]

... why didn't they intervene to save the free world until their fleet got bombed?

the nazis were elected, the Queen not so much.

[Smilin' Dave]

Honestly,

the nazis were elected

Hitler was not elected to his position (and constitutionally couldn't have been), and the Nazis never achieved a majority in fair elections. The Nazis also didn't remain democratic once in power.

the Queen not so much.

A constitutional monarch who acts largely on the advice of parliament. Sounds better than Nazism to me. Irish-American objections to supporting the British had little to do with comparative government and a lot to do with past conflicts.

[DanDaMan]

why didn't they intervene to save the free world until their fleet got bombed?

Because the Liberals of the time protested and said it was not our war.

I bet, that had the Liberals known Hitler was baking Jews, they would have still kept us out of the war.

[Smilin' Dave]

I take it back Oxy, by comparison the above post makes yours look reasonable.

Because the Liberals of the time protested and said it was not our war.

FDR, a liberal, was the one trying to get the US into the war in Europe. It was Republicans/conservatives who favoured isolation at seemingly any cost. Also going back further, it was the leftists who favoured intervention in the Spanish Civil War.

The study of history is not a time machine that allows us to go back for material to fight inane political battles in the present.

[Lightman]

Obvious trolls are obvious, Dan. I know your game. At least, I pray that that is what we are dealing with.

[Oxymoron]

Smilin Dave I was just making a point that our involvement in the war had nothing to to with democratc ideals, they had to do with national interests.

[Smilin' Dave]

This is fair, however your point was that the Nazis were somehow more democratic than Britain, which is complete nonsense.