8 ms·

Americans do call it a World War, don't they? I think you're being a bit too cynical.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
Perhaps pedantic. But the comment I was replying to specifically framed WW2 as "a war with the US" and I've had foreign friends, such as in Canada, who have commented on America's tendency to talk like we singlehandedly won that war.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  I don't think "war with the US" was meant to imply "A war in which America was on it's own and did everything"; that's a cynical read of it. A less cynical read would be that "war with the US" means "war in which the US was a participant." Germany did declare war with the US, hence there was in fact a war with the US. Of course, Germany was also at war with lots of other people. All Americans are taught that in schools. It's called a World War for a reason and people do understand that, even when they're going out of their way to mention it. If Americans don't mention Canadian participation much it's simply because they don't talk about Canada much in the first place. It's not because they're unaware that Canada participated in the war. Canada is a commonwealth country, of course they participated in the war. Everybody here knows that.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    I don't understand your use of the word cynical here. It sounds like you might mean "bad faith or uncharitable reading." Ironically, that framing of my remarks strikes me as uncharitable. I did start by asserting from the get go that I was picking nits. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    I don't think "war with the US" was meant to imply... Since I wrote it I'll clue you in. The phrase plainly means a "modern" "war", in which USA decides, usually after extensive government and media gaslighting, to violently invade a nation that did nothing to provoke such invasion. We've done this many times since the early 1950s. This entire WWII sub-thread is a quivering mass of willful cynical misreading and look-how-much-irrelevant-history-I-know posturing.

Perhaps pedantic. But the comment I was replying to specifically framed WW2 as "a war with the US" and I've had foreign friends, such as in Canada, who have commented on America's tendency to talk like we singlehandedly won that war.

darkpuma 7y ago
I don't think "war with the US" was meant to imply "A war in which America was on it's own and did everything"; that's a cynical read of it. A less cynical read would be that "war with the US" means "war in which the US was a participant." Germany did declare war with the US, hence there was in fact a war with the US. Of course, Germany was also at war with lots of other people. All Americans are taught that in schools. It's called a World War for a reason and people do understand that, even when they're going out of their way to mention it. If Americans don't mention Canadian participation much it's simply because they don't talk about Canada much in the first place. It's not because they're unaware that Canada participated in the war. Canada is a commonwealth country, of course they participated in the war. Everybody here knows that.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  I don't understand your use of the word cynical here. It sounds like you might mean "bad faith or uncharitable reading." Ironically, that framing of my remarks strikes me as uncharitable. I did start by asserting from the get go that I was picking nits. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
- jessaustin 7y ago
  I don't think "war with the US" was meant to imply... Since I wrote it I'll clue you in. The phrase plainly means a "modern" "war", in which USA decides, usually after extensive government and media gaslighting, to violently invade a nation that did nothing to provoke such invasion. We've done this many times since the early 1950s. This entire WWII sub-thread is a quivering mass of willful cynical misreading and look-how-much-irrelevant-history-I-know posturing.