• Prunebutt@slrpnk.netBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    They were done for imperialist reasons, yes.

    What’s your point? I didn’t make a moralist statement about imperialism.

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 days ago

        Not a historian, but from the top of my head: driving back Germany from having too much power in Europe, assisting the British allies and/or preventing the soviets from conquering too much of Germany and turning it “socialist”.

        Do you think the US entered a war, because Hitler was a bad guy? O.o

        • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Lol definitely not, Hitler was one of the western allies’ best customers of raw materials. In fact, US bomber pilots were specifically instructed not to hit certain factories in Germany that had business ties with US capitalists. Conscientiousness is not something I would ever expect from the people who would go on to do the Korean genocide ten years later.

          But what I’m getting from this definition is that any military action across a national border for any reason other than, i guess, pure moral altruistim, is imperialism. Is that the conclusion you mean to build to?

          • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netBanned from community
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            5 days ago

            States don’t do altruism in a world of states that compete against each other.

            • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              5 days ago

              Yeah I agree. So does that make all military conflict that crosses a national border imperialism or does it not?

              • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netBanned from community
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                5 days ago

                I don’t “want to built to” any conclusion. I gave one definition. And your conclusion, according to that definition is correct.

                • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  It’s “anarchists” like you why people call it anarkiddies. Read theory then you won’t sound as stupid as you do in this thread

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              5 days ago

              Just straight up admitting you’ve defined imperialism so broadly as to be meaningless