Support NeoGAF

[TheFuzz]

I just want to come back and thank everyone for their contributions. I cannot wait to read all these posts, many of them are very insightful and are presenting arguments I hadn't thought of before.

 

[MC Safety]

Nah, Stalin was pretty happy with what he got at Potsdam. He was a firm believer in spheres of influence and buffer zones and he got what he wanted already. Heck, he was even happy to let Finland stay independent as long as he kept the gains from the Winter War.

We're talking about the Allies meeting in Berlin, not about the Potsdam Accord.

 

[RipperGrim]

Eastern Europe got really fucked over by all the major players at the end.

I can understand it though, to fight the Soviet Union on all the land grabbing it did would have meant more war at a time people were really fucking of tired of it but man I can't imagine what it must have been like for those countries to go from being conquered by the Nazis and then "liberated" by Stalin.

I do think Americas involvement in the war was necessary and honestly western Europe really did owe them for helping out considering they got to keep their independence. They also helped the Chinese against the Japanese with supplies and trade. Them dropping the bomb though I think was unnecessary and was done more to show the world (Soviet Union mostly though) the power of a nuclear bomb more than anything else

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

I see the bombs as a scumbag move that fucked up countless lives for generations.

Compared to what? A mainland invasion of Japan that would have killed millions on both sides? Maybe a blockade, where possibly millions die from starvation?

People need to face one very simple fact. The bombs were the fastest, easiest way to end the war before shit got really messy. The planned US invasion of mainland Japan would have run head first into a heavily entrenched, brutal Japanese army that would sooner be wiped out than surrender or give an inch (To this day we still give out Purple Hearts that were ordered in preparation for the invasion). Civilians were being trained to use Spears and old cannons to fight. And it had already been documented that civilians would also commit suicide rather than deal with the americans.

Like it or not, every option was shitty and lead to countless pointless deaths. The bombs as they were used caused far fewer casualties than an invasion or a blockade and were the best out of the shitty options.

But hey, of ignoring the reality of it all helps you get that hate boner going, more power to you I guess because apparently the possible complete destruction of Japan was a better option.

 

[4Tran]

We're talking about the Allies meeting in Berlin, not about the Potsdam Accord.

Whoops. I remembered incorrectly. It should have been Yalta that most of the territorial outcomes.

 

[JordanN]

It's been pointed out before that Japan was "weak/on the verge of surrender" but that's not true. Even in 1945, Japan was still pretty damn huge.

Yeah, they got beaten out of the Philippines and were slowly being driven back, but they still held onto large chunks of China, Korea and Vietnam.

And if we learned our lesson with Nazi Germany, you also have to take into account that Japan was also committing crimes against humanity during this time. With their forced sex slavery and unit 731 experiments. These things would still go on if the allies had to invade the mainland and there was still a refusal to surrender.

The atomic bombs were terrible but if you look at this map, it didn't just save a country. It saved an entire continent from being annihilated.

 

[mdubs]

A few people mentioning the atomic bomb so...

...As Brit, I always found the use of an atomic bomb morally reprehensible and it just doesn't sit right with me because if it were to happen to us, and generations of families were left devastated, I would feel the exact same. I think people would feel the same so I don't agree with the double standard. Not justified imo, and I feel people have been always told 'there was no other way' that they think it was the only alternative so that they're convinced.

Ok then, what was the alternative way? People have already taken pains to point (in the post above mine) that a blockade would not have worked?

So what was the solution?

 

[cilonen]

I'm not Russian myself, and I have no particular affection for the state, ideology or agenda the current regime wants to push internationally but I do want to say that I think the sacrifice of the Russian people in WWII was absolutely immense and deserves a hell of a lot more recognition in the west.

They lost between 26 and 27 million people, including civilians during the conflict. That's heartbreaking.

 

[TheFuzz]

I'm not Russian myself, and I have no particular affection for the state, ideology or agenda the current regime wants to push internationally but I do want to say that I think the sacrifice of the Russian people in WWII was absolutely immense and deserves a hell of a lot more recognition in the west.

They lost between 26 and 27 million people, including civilians during the conflict. That's heartbreaking.

I don't think it's so much that the people and soldiers weren't respected, it's more to do with Stalin and the atrocities he was known for that doesn't sit well with most. No doubt the country was a huge reason the Allies won.

 

[cilonen]

I don't think it's so much that the people and soldiers weren't respected, it's more to do with Stalin and the atrocities he was known for that doesn't sit well with most. No doubt the country was a huge reason the Allies won.

Yep, that's a fair point.

 

[Risk Breaker]

Canadian. US helped in the end but sat on their asses for far too long as the world suffered, a second time, with the "not our problem" excuse. Germany was defeated by its own hubris, insanity, possible drug addiction and in large part the Russians. Japan would have surrendered and was making efforts to on many fronts from the Russians, the Vatican I believe and even Allan Dulles. The atomic bombs were a war crime and were completely unnecessary.

This post pretty much nails it.

 

[reckless]

This post pretty much nails it.

I like how the U.S is somehow the only one blamed with the whole not my problem.

Germany - obvious reasons of letting Hitler come to power
Britain/France - Let Czechoslovakia and Austria get annexed.. Waited way to long to mobilize and let Poland get taken over.
USSR - Helped Germany take over Poland and was content to wait until they were attacked. (And traded with Nazis vital resources up until they were attacked)

But somehow only the U.S gets blamed for wanting to sit out.

 

[Dhx]

This post pretty much nails it.

Except Japan wasn't surrendering. Regardless of the debate on the bomb vs an invasion.. Japan was not surrendering.

We've gone over this for years in Hiroshima anniversary threads and unless something new has come up in the last year, all evidence points toward Japan not surrendering. The wiki entries and quotes out of context are trotted out every year as well. Japan surrendering is a modern myth that leads back to a single faulty source if I recall. I'll see if I can find the time later to dig through those posts, but it's all in the Hiroshima threads.

 

[4Tran]

It's been pointed out before that Japan was "weak/on the verge of surrender" but that's not true. Even in 1945, Japan was still pretty damn huge.

Yeah, they got beaten out of the Philippines and were slowly being driven back, but they still held onto large chunks of China, Korea and Vietnam.

And if we learned our lesson with Nazi Germany, you also have to take into account that Japan was also committing crimes against humanity during this time. With their forced sex slavery and unit 731 experiments. These things would still go on if the allies had to invade the mainland and there was still a refusal to surrender.

The atomic bombs were terrible but if you look at this map, it didn't just save a country. It saved an entire continent from being annihilated.

The picture is very misleading because the Japanese military strength had been largely broken everywhere outside of the Home Islands and China. The IJN didn't exist any more and Japan didn't have many modern planes or high quality pilots any more. There were a few island garrisons that were still strong, but they'd been cut off and could not contribute in any way against the Allies.

Ok then, what was the alternative way? People have already taken pains to point (in the post above mine) that a blockade would not have worked?

So what was the solution?

There were alternatives to the nuclear bombs. These are as follows:

1. Starve out Japan and wait for them to surrender. It probably would have worked, but starvation would have lead to millions of deaths by 1946.

2. Enact Operation Downfall. The US was planning to do that anyways and their plan was to drop nuclear bombs alongside the invasion. It would have probably lead to millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of American casualties though.

3. Wait until the Soviet Union invades Japanese territories. The problem with this is twofold. The first is that there's no way for the Allies to know what kind of effect this would have in bringing in the Japanese to accepting surrender. The second is that the Western Allies didn't think that the Soviet Union would be able to invade until 1946, and that would be after Operation Downfall anyways.

So yes, I think that Truman did have alternatives to dropping the nuclear bombs, but these alternatives aren't particularly palatable, and the one that was, was only viable through hindsight. Sure, Stalin had promised to enter the war against Japan within 3 months of the surrender of Germany, but nobody expected that he would follow through with such sincerity.

 

[MC Safety]

Whoops. I remembered incorrectly. It should have been Yalta that most of the territorial outcomes.

Great, but the issue was the Russians could have easily absorbed all of Germany and proceeded onward. It was the presence of the armies of the United States of America that prevented further aggression.

In fact, if the Allies hadn't slowed down, Germany might not have been fractured as it was.

 

[4Tran]

Great, but the issue was the Russians could have easily absorbed all of Germany and proceeded onward. It was the presence of the armies of the United States of America that prevented further aggression.

In fact, if the Allies hadn't slowed down, Germany might not have been fractured as it was.

I can see why the Soviet Union might want all of Germany, but why would they go any farther? There's nothing in Stalin's history to indicate that he's interested in things like that. Look at Manchuria and North Korea - he could have swallowed both of those up had he really wanted to, but he was ever a pragmatist who didn't want to overreach.

 

[MC Safety]

I can see why the Soviet Union might want all of Germany, but why would they go any farther? There's nothing in Stalin's history to indicate that he's interested in things like that. Look at Manchuria and North Korea - he could have swallowed both of those up had he really wanted to, but he was ever a pragmatist who didn't want to overreach.

I don't presume to know the mind of Stalin. But by war's end, he was increasingly paranoid and may not have trusted the Soviet Union to be treated fairly in the peace process. Had the door been open, he may have seized Europe and bartered back scraps.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

American.

I've learned not to downplay any major player in the war, and not to say that any specific victory or outcome would have been a foregone conclusion without the participation of all those involved. World War II is way too complex to make huge sweeping assumptions about.

The Soviets really were the punching bag that took the brunt of the Nazis, and don't get enough of the credit in this country. You do have to wonder if millions of Soviets could have been saved if not for Stalin's methods, or if he just hadn't trusted Hitler and put the USSR in that position in the first place.

The dropping of the atomic bombs is a war crime, but it's really hard to single them against the continual firebombing-related deaths that nobody in these threads ever complains about. Should the USA have been prosecuted for it? Given that all the major forces bombed civilian populations, it was an mutually agreed upon tactic. It's morally wrong, but legally, it was within standard bounds of WWII.

 

[phaze]

I feel americans and rest of allies betrayed my country (Poland) and gave us as a free gift to Russia, starting almost half century of tyranny here. Still better than alternative, I guess,.

Poland betrayed Czechs much worse earlier on when they took part in their demise. The British and French declared war on Germany because of their attack on US. Later on, US and British weren't in position to give Poland to Stalin and expecting them to go to war with USSR over the issue is plain absurd.


----

Poland here. - I suppose it could have been worse ? We survived as a nation and as a distinct country ruled by the, puppets and all but still Poles which given the situation on the outset of war wasn't quite the obvious outcome.

USSR - Not quite sure what to say here. From the 1943 Stalin held all the cards and cynically speaking, he played them well.

US - I find the use of the bombs justified, even though I don't believe the absurd casualty estimates of 1 million. (Funny guy that Macarthur). It still saved US and (especially) Japanese from hefty butcher bill, brought the war to an end quickly and limited USSR gains. But as for the whole war, I find their contribution somewhat overrated even when viewed only through the lens of Japanese, Italian and NW - Europe efforts, where British and Chinese were doing a lot of the unsung lifting and in the latter two cases,where I find American generalship to be straight incompetent most of the time and as such making their contribution be less than it can numerically seem.

British - I'm not sure if they aren't the most unappreciated side of the conflict these days (since there has been a lot of reappraisal of Soviet role in past 30 years). While heavily stretched out, their early role in helping the Soviet effort, primarily role in the fall of Italy, containment of significant Japanese force in Burma as well as the often forgotten blockade of Europe and its impact on German and German occupied lands deserves more praise than it gets.

 

[TheFuzz]

This post pretty much nails it.

This is ignorant. Every single first-world country sat on their asses until Hitler barged in. The war escalated primarily because every nation tried to appease the Axis Powers.

 

[MutFox]

Love how people defend war crimes.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

This post pretty much nails it.

European countries sitting around and doing nothing is exactly how Hitler annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia.

 

[4Tran]

I don't presume to know the mind of Stalin. But by war's end, he was increasingly paranoid and may not have trusted the Soviet Union to be treated fairly in the peace process. Had the door been open, he may have seized Europe and bartered back scraps.

Why make that assumption? The door was open in other places and Stalin didn't take advantage there, so why would he want overreach all the beyond Germany?

 

[UltimaPooh]

I like how the U.S is somehow the only one blamed with the whole not my problem.

Germany - obvious reasons of letting Hitler come to power
Britain/France - Let Czechoslovakia and Austria get annexed.. Waited way to long to mobilize and let Poland get taken over.
USSR - Helped Germany take over Poland and was content to wait until they were attacked. (And traded with Nazis vital resources up until they were attacked)

But somehow only the U.S gets blamed for wanting to sit out.

US is always blamed. Either they wait too long or they get in too early.

Comes with the territory tho.

 

[JZA]

At the point in the war that the bombs were dropped, to me it it makes more sense that US military leaders would be more worried about the threat of the massive Soviet army that had just helped crush Germany. It's weird to think that it was very necessary to have the help of such a huge force during WW2 but I don't remember the Soviets ever being referred to as part of the Allies. I think using the atomic bomb against the Japanese was more about sending a message to Russia to not try anything after the war since it was already apparent that with or without an invasion, Japan couldn't possibly hold out for very long after the fall of Germany and Italy.

 

[4Tran]

At the point in the war that the bombs were dropped, to me it it makes more sense that US military leaders would be more worried about the threat of the massive Soviet army that had just helped crush Germany.

Nope. By then, most of the Soviet forces had been withdrawn from Europe and many of them were in the Far East in position to invade Manchuria.

It's weird to think that it was very necessary to have the help of such a huge force during WW2 but I don't remember the Soviets ever being referred to as part of the Allies. I think using the atomic bomb against the Japanese was more about sending a message to Russia to not try anything after the war since it was already apparent that with or without an invasion, Japan couldn't possibly hold out for very long after the fall of Germany and Italy.

The Soviets were very much considered allies throughout the war. Both sides didn't tell each other everything about their operations, but they did coordinate to a degree. For example, Operation Bagration was a massive Soviet offensive that was supposed to occur shortly after Operation Overlord, and Stalin promised to attack Japan within three months of ending the war in Europe.

The nuclear bombs may have been dropped to forestall the actual Soviet attack, but they would not have been used as a warning. Truman told Stalin about having a nuclear bomb (and it was at Potsdam this time!):

President Truman wrote a note on the back of this photograph "In which I tell Stalin we expect to drop the most powerful explosive ever made on the Japanese. He smiled and said he appreciated my telling him - but he did not know what I'm talking about - the Atomic Bomb!

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

It seems a lot of folks in here are confusing the hindsight we have now, knowing exactly how things eventually turned out, with what they actually knew in 1945, which were educated guesses at best.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

I like how the U.S is somehow the only one blamed with the whole not my problem.


But somehow only the U.S gets blamed for wanting to sit out.

Because they sat it out while war broke out on 3 continents. The Brits and French could and should have done more in the 30s, but it was still neighbouring skirmishes at that time. Who could predict where things would turn? But sitting back at watching the world chew itself up? No excuses.

 

[Serpens007]

Chilean here. At least that war didn't destroy our monoproducing economy like WWI.


Anyway, regarding bombs vs other methods. Yeah, everyone is terrible, but at least a blockade wouldn't have left generation after generation of genetic problems due to radiation.

 

[gamechanger87]

Really surprised people would prefer a guarantee of millions of deaths from Operation Downfall versus the bomb.

 

[4Tran]

Because they sat it out while war broke out on 3 continents. The Brits and French could and should have done more in the 30s, but it was still neighbouring skirmishes at that time. Who could predict where things would turn? But sitting back at watching the world chew itself up? No excuses.

To be fair, Roosevelt wanted to be in the war in 1940, but the isolationists in the US made full entry untenable. His destroyers for bases trade in 1940 blatantly favored Britain, and Lend-Lease in 1941 was enough to provoke German submarines into attacking American warships.

Really surprised people would prefer a guarantee of millions of deaths from Operation Downfall versus the bomb.

It's easy to say that the bombs killed a lot of people and were wrong, but it's a lot more work into reading the historical details and looking at what the alternatives entailed.

 

[phaze]

No excuses.

- Non existent army.
- That's not how democracy works. No one will gladly send their sons to the far off war, that doesn't directly threaten you.
- Roosevelt went as far as practically prosecuting undeclared war on Hitler before Pearl Harbor.

 

[DocSeuss]

Because they sat it out while war broke out on 3 continents. The Brits and French could and should have done more in the 30s, but it was still neighbouring skirmishes at that time. Who could predict where things would turn? But sitting back at watching the world chew itself up? No excuses.

Should we shit all over Switzerland too? America was a nation that had done its best to stay out of wars for a few decades at that point. People wanted to be peaceful.

World War 2 messed us up. It gave rise to America's military-industrial complex and the Cold War. The cost of America entering the war was ridiculously high. It's completely rational that they wanted to stay out of it.

We were shipping tons of military supplies, but the overall consensus was that we didn't want to get involved.

 

[TarNaru33]

US - I find the use of the bombs justified, even though I don't believe the absurd casualty estimates of 1 million. (Funny guy that Macarthur). It still saved US and (especially) Japanese from hefty butcher bill, brought the war to an end quickly and limited USSR gains. But as for the whole war, I find their contribution somewhat overrated even when viewed only through the lens of Japanese, Italian and NW - Europe efforts, where British and Chinese were doing a lot of the unsung lifting and in the latter two cases,where I find American generalship to be straight incompetent most of the time and as such making their contribution be less than it can numerically seem.

Casualties are both dead and wounded and with the way U.S was waging war at the time and how the Japanese have fought (where they rather die and kill their children and family than surrender), there is no doubt U.S and Japanese would approach a million or more.

 

[gamechanger87]

It's easy to say that the bombs killed a lot of people and were wrong, but it's a lot more work into reading the historical details and looking at what the alternatives entailed.

Correct. It's easier to throw around war crimes accusations at the US for dropping the bomb (which was never considered a war crime at the time because an explosive of that power was never considered) versus actually looking into what took place across the world during those years.

I've read a ton of WW2 history and I've realized with topics like this laying out all of the information falls on deaf ears.

Regarding who won the war its a combination of everyone, but the way I look at it Germany more lost the war than the Allies won it. Barbarossa almost succeeded.

 

[Firemind]

Should we shit all over Switzerland too? America was a nation that had done its best to stay out of wars for a few decades at that point. People wanted to be peaceful.

World War 2 messed us up. It gave rise to America's military-industrial complex and the Cold War. The cost of America entering the war was ridiculously high. It's completely rational that they wanted to stay out of it.

We were shipping tons of military supplies, but the overall consensus was that we didn't want to get involved.

Comparing the USA to Switzerland LOL

 

[The Living Tribunal]

That the USSR did most of the heavy lifting and then decades of cultural propaganda made everyone think the US was the one hero.

You don't rape an entire city and get to be the "hero"

 

[Maedre]

German here.

I think the way the war ended for Germany was good for the whole Western Hemisphere. I don't want to know how the world would have loked when the nazis would have won.

I would definitely not exist.

 

[Parch]

I like how the U.S is somehow the only one blamed with the whole not my problem.

The reasons for the start of the war is different from when the war was going on. This is why Canada's view differs from the US. When Britain asked for troops, Canada was there. Canadians signed up from across the country and we provided troops and resources as best we could. We were using fishing boats and everything that floated to start the supply lines and send people.

While Canadians got fully involved, Americans did nothing. When the call for help came, one showed up, the other didn't.

 

[andythinkpad]

The Soviet did most of the heavy lifting and has contribute most of the combatant casualty.

The US contributed most of te resource, including tons of resource to Soviet directly.

US/Soviet should have invaded Japan directly and abolish the emperor/State bureaucracy.

Nazy Germany could have saved itself if it didn't invade USSR and use the time to develop the nuclear bomb.

LOL Italy.

 

[ZOONAMI]

Naw. The Soviets won the pivotal Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk before the Allies landed in Sicily. You could make the argument that the Allied invasion of Sicily won the Soviets the Battle of Kursk by having Hitler prevent Manstein from continuing his offensive, but most scholars agree that Manstein vastly underestimated the Soviet reserves (which were in reserve for a later counteroffensive) and would have lost the war of attrition had he continued.

Would the Soviets have been able to make it to Berlin? I think so, but it's debatable. But after that point it was pretty clear that the Germans were fighting to survive, not conquer.

Yeah so the Germans probably should have just left the soviets alone, focused on the western front, and then maybe given the soviets Ukraine, etc and Finland as a peace offering? I dunno. The two fronts didn't seem to work out for them.

 

[KillerMan91]

You don't rape an entire city and get to be the "hero"

Well considering what Germans did to soviets (tried to wipe them out of existence) it's no wonder that Soviets had pretty huge ''revenge'' mindset when the war turned in their favor. Not that it made it in any way acceptable but considering human mind I think it was pretty understandable why it happened.

 

[Bumhead]

The atomic bomb is a real grey area.

Personally I think you have to tread carefully making bold statements or condemnation of events from what in many ways was an impossible period of our history. It's very easy to sit here 70 years later, in our time of relative peace and safety, and say what should and shouldn't happen in a time of such ghastly and extensive war.

What I would say is, even for those who think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a reprehensible show of avoidable excessive force, how do we know for certain what the world would look like had they not been dropped? I wonder how many times over the last 70 years nuclear weapons might have been used had we not got the horrors of the end of the war to look back on.

 

[Kin5290]

The western front as we know it wouldn't exist in any comparable way without the US Army and production capacity.

So no.

Nor the Eastern front. The Soviet defense in the face of Germany's invading forces were kept alive on the backs of American war materiel.

 

[-Amon-]

Americans where vital in keeping England alive till 1942. Without their supplies Hitler would have won the war in the west.
Thanks to them the nazis had to fight on two fronts. That helped the soviets to survive the first impact too.
So they had a big, decisive impact in Europe.

Militarily however Americans where much More involved in the east, where they defeated Japan alone.

So, one one front they where decisive with economic and logistical aid.
On the other they won alone.

Speaking of the Atomic Bomb, its really difficult to say it was really needed.

Italy here.

 

[iamblades]

Because they sat it out while war broke out on 3 continents. The Brits and French could and should have done more in the 30s, but it was still neighbouring skirmishes at that time. Who could predict where things would turn? But sitting back at watching the world chew itself up? No excuses.

The only reason there was a second world war was because the US joined the conflict and tipped the balance of power drastically, leading to the punitive peace treaty. You can't really neatly predict the outcomes of decisions on that scale.

Besides the fact that the US had no real standing army anyway, so there was nothing that could be done. Even if the decision was made, it would have taken basically the same amount of time before the US could field an army in Europe.

You also have to consider that without the iron clad casus belli, the government would not have the political capital to do what was necessary, especially in the post war period.

It was a decision that fundamentally and permanently altered America's role in the world and our domestic politics. That's not something that should have been done without a damned good reason.

 

[TheExodu5]

I view the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as horrible acts that were necessary to instruct the world on the absolute devastation ans horrors inflicted by nuclear weapons.

If not for the bombings, things may have gone down much differently during the cold war.

The bombings taught us that we should never, ever resort to nuclear weapons in the future.

 

[TarNaru33]

Well considering what Germans did to soviets (tried to wipe them out of existence) it's no wonder that Soviets had pretty huge ''revenge'' mindset when the war turned in their favor. Not that it made it in any way acceptable but considering human mind I think it was pretty understandable why it happened.

This is incorrect, this happened mainly because the Soviet army was an undisciplined mess and what do you think happen when officers of an army do not try to stop undisciplined men from reprehensible actions? Exactly.

It wasn't just a "revenge pillage and rape" it was just soldiers doing what they wanted because they knew they can.

 

[pantsmith]

The atomic bomb is a real grey area.

Personally I think you have to tread carefully making bold statements or condemnation of events from what in many ways was an impossible period of our history. It's very easy to sit here 70 years later, in our time of relative peace and safety, and say what should and shouldn't happen in a time of such ghastly and extensive war.

What I would say is, even for those who think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a reprehensible show of avoidable excessive force, how do we know for certain what the world would look like had they not been dropped? I wonder how many times over the last 70 years nuclear weapons might have been used had we not got the horrors of the end of the war to look back on.

Yeah. There's no real easy answer on this.

Does the threat of nuclear annihilation actually curtail the prospect of war between major powers? Despite the looming threat, are we actually better for it? I dunno.

 

[ZOONAMI]

The reasons for the start of the war is different from when the war was going on. This is why Canada's view differs from the US. When Britain asked for troops, Canada was there. Canadians signed up from across the country and we provided troops and resources as best we could. We were using fishing boats and everything that floated to start the supply lines and send people.

While Canada got fully involved, Americans did nothing. When the call for help came, one showed up, the other didn't.

Isn't that expected when Canada is essentially part of the crown and the us revolted against the crown only 150 years earlier?

US getting involved at all honesty was somewhat unexpected, WWI and WWII.