Why did the USA get involved in both world wars?

[Julie4]

[nightdrot]

The answer is actually somewhat more complicated than history has tended to treat the question. Though, in a sense, the reason for American entry into both world wars was, at a fundamental level, strikingly similar.

Of course, the immediate causes for American entry into both world wars - especially the Second - is broadly well known. In the case of WWII, of course, it was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and subsequent declaration of war that brought the Americans into war. This then followed by the declaration of war by Germany and Italy on the United States as per the terms of the Axis Tri-Partite Pact - at least as Berlin and Rome chose to read those terms.

Interestingly the German and Italian war declarations on the USA did not take place until December 11, 4 days after Pearl Harbor and the Japanese declaration of war. This provoking a brief period of anxiety in Britain that the USA might not enter the war in Europe and North Africa. Of course, in the end, Hitler and Mussolini decided the issue.

As to World War I, popular memory has it that the sinking of the passenger liner Lusitania - on which American tourists were aboard - by a German submarine and Berlin's campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare that brought the USA into the Great War. In truth, though, this was not the case.

The immediate cause for American entry into World War I was the publication of the Zimmermann Telegram, which had been decoded by British intelligence and released to the American press. To that point, there had been a civil war in Mexico and one of the revolutionaries, Pancho Villa, had crossed into US territory and killed a number of Americans. This had prompted President Wilson to launch a punitive campaign into Mexican territory.

Against this backdrop, Germany offered - if Mexico would agree to join the war against the USA should Washington declare war on Berlin - to give Mexico the American states of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico in any peace settlement. Suffice to say, this was a clear German violation of the Monroe Doctrine, in which the USA had long ago that it sought to exclude European colonial powers from the Western Hemisphere.

Suffice to say, this violation of the Monroe Doctrine - by far the most elemental of America's security interests - particularly set against the backdrop of German submarine warfare in violation of the principle of freedom of the seas - in turn endangering American trade with Europe - outraged the American public opinion and provoked President Wilson to ask Congress for a declaration of war. (Later the USA would also declare war on the Austro-Hungarian Empire - Germany's main ally - though not against the Ottoman Empire or the Kingdom of Bulgaria.)

However, at a deeper level, the American entry into both wars was to secure America's strategic position. The USA could not tolerate a single dominant power on the continent of Europe as this would make America's overall security position - even inside the Western Hemisphere - untenable. If a state in Europe - or with Japan in Asia - was unfettered in its position, it would be free to attack the USA at will. It being added that outside Europe (and China to a lesser extent), there would be no major powers with which the USA could ally to secure its' overall position. (The USA was the only great power in the Western Hemisphere.)

Thus early on, the USA, in both world wars, worked to buttress the Allied position. Especially the United Kingdom, which like the USA had long had - albeit for slightly different reasons - a policy of preventing the rise of a single dominant power on the continent of Europe.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Interestingly - this is a bit of a digression - the entry of the USA into World War I had the unintentional impact of turning what had been a conflict over the balance of power and spheres of influence, into an ideological contest. It had long been an article of faith in America that war was the result of the undemocratic societies of the "Old World" ignoring the common man and seeking out imperialist aims.

President Wilson shared these quintessentially American views. Thus, when the USA entered the war it did so not just to secure the European balance of power, but to, in effect, render it meaningless by making all Europe democratic and therefore presumably peaceful.

Consequently, at Versailles, Wilson proffered the League of Nations idea. The other victorious great powers - UK, France and Italy - begrudgingly accepted this but continued to pursue more narrow strategic games. Thus setting the stage for an even more brutal second war as the defeated Germans turned to an ideology that seemed to offer them revenge, and as the Russian revolution played itself out with the advent of communism as a new threat to the Western world order.

So, long story short, there were a wide variety of factors at work that brought the USA into both world wars. These were not just strategic and economic, but also, to some extent, had an ideological cast. Thus did the USA enter WWI, for example, under Wilson's slogan that America would make the world safe for democracy.

[Julie4]

Thank you very much for this excellent answer, as usual.

It can be said that fundamentally American foreign policy on the European continent has not changed, preventing the emergence of a single power on the continent, because it will represent a threat to fundamental American security and trade. Same thing for the UK.

But whatever we say, this policy of balance ensured in large part by the USA through NATO is largely beneficial for the European nations. Because without this the European nations would have to devote a large part of their economies to their defense and a country like France would be obliged to devote its attention to the European continent, whereas today it can afford to have a policy " world". Which would be almost impossible if the USA left Europe.

Besides, I have the impression that American and European public opinion does not always grasp the importance of transatlantic ties for the interests of their nations. For example in France it is fashionable among populist politicians to want the disappearance of NATO. Which would obviously be harmful to French interests, but I don't know why this kind of talk appeals.

On the other hand, I have the impression that for the American public, NATO is just a money pit which only serves to protect these crazy Europeans from themselves, but which basically does not serve much thing to American interests.

However, even for the USA, the relationship with the EU remains fundamental.

I had recorded these sentences from a former US security adviser, but I don't remember his first name anymore, forgive me for that, but that pretty much sums up the importance of Europe, although it was written in the 80s.

Cont.

[Julie4]

"Europe is America's fundamental geostrategic bridgehead. For America, the geostrategic stakes on the Eurasian continent are enormous. More valuable than its relationship with the Japanese archipelago, the Atlantic Alliance enables it to exert political influence and military weight directly on the continent. So much so, in fact, that when US-European relations are added together, the European nations that are allies of the Alliance depend on the USA for their security. If Europe were to enlarge, it would automatically increase the direct influence of the United States. Conversely, if transatlantic ties were to cease, America's primacy in Eurasia would come to an end. Its control of the Atlantic Ocean and its ability to penetrate deep into the continent would then be very limited. "

"Finally, on the Western periphery, the ousting of the United States by its partners would sign
the end of American participation in the Eurasian chessboard, even if such a reversal would undoubtedly mean the subordination of the West's borders to a player once again powerful in the central region. "

End

[nightdrot]

Thanks for the kind compliment.

As to your points. To start, it is not as though the citizens of countries, as a general rule, are broadly aware of these large strategic questions. Most citizens go about getting the groceries, going to work, raising the kids, etc. - the daily business of life.

It is not as if, in World War I, American citizens said, "Omigosh!! We need to preserve the balance of power." At the popular level, most Americans were outraged because it seemed like Germany was siding with Mexicans who had killed Americans.

These broader strategic questions are there - and as you showed, analysts recognize them - and they are real, but they are latent. Indeed, in the case of World War I, even for President Wilson, he tended to see things through the prism of American values - "a war to make the world safe for democracy..." - and such.

The fact that such values were expressed in a certain geopolitical context was not necessarily recognized. Their reality was more expressed in the way the powers conducted the war.

The reason why World War I was a non-ideological contest was that, whatever the political differences, the West overall dominated the world. There were really no arguments about "how ought we to live." Rather, they were arguments "within the family," so to speak.

When the Great War shattered the West's self-confidence - the end of the Edwardian era, as it were - it was only then that questions about "how ought we to live" came to the fore. Hence the Fascists, the Nazis, the Communists and thus World War II and the Cold War.

With the end of the Cold War, there is no ideological model to replace the West and thus it is back in various forms. Europe, the USA and the West accepting democracy and variations on free markets. China accepting free markets but absent democracy and so on.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

The great ideological contests are over for the moment. The West is back, albeit lacking the massive self-confidence of the pre-WWI "Edwardian" era. Thus the West - as you are seeing in France itself with the recent riots - is experiencing a period of social tumult.

The only question being will the West endure this period of socio-cultural turmoil as it has in the past - See the 1960s and 70s for a recent example... - or will it collapse. My guess is the former, but nothing made by man will last forever. The pendulum swings back and forth - until it stops.

At any rate, yes, most Americans do not appreciate the things that make possible the quality of their lives in a geopolitical world. Europeans, because of their history on a crowded continent, tend to be a bit more aware, but not necessarily so. In any case, that does not mean that they are always grateful for it and sometimes even resent it. Hence, periods of anti-Americanism.

Europeans and Americans: Two peoples separated by a common cultural and strategic heritage. Thus has it ever been.

[Julie4]

I have no quarrel with what you've said. I understand that citizens worry about everyday issues rather than big strategic ones, I do too lol. But as far as politicians are concerned, those who advocate the disappearance of NATO and express primary anti-American sentiment are irresponsible for me.

Anyway, I hope you're having a good day with your family ☺️

[nightdrot]

On your last point, you are not wrong, but that is politics in a democracy. Politicians seeking votes respond to the popular attitudes. Sometimes these attitudes are wise and sober and historically self-aware, sometimes not.

Welcome to the perils of life in a democracy. You want better political elites, get better voters. Remember, in a democracy, the people do not decide, they decide which elites decide. NOT a very popular message in a populist era, but as Burke realized, it is reality.

Thanks and you have a good day too. (In fact, I know that France is little more than a week away from its' own special holiday. Although we will probably chat before then, here's in advance to wishing you the best Bastille Day.)

[strateguy632]

you started so good, the causes at the time if the decision is what caused the decision.

[strateguy632]

to night.

[nightdrot]

@strateguy632 Apologies to you but I don't understand what you wrote.

[NamerOfStars]

Because Woodrow Wilson was the worst kind of idiot: the kind who thinks he's a genius, and Hindenberg and Ludendorf weren't much better. The Mexican revolution was heating up, and after Diaz resigned, Wilson refused to acknowledge Huerta's government, which had been put in place by a coup backed by the Taft administration. (The Mexican presidency at the time was pretty much a revolving door).

Some American sailors, coming ashore in Tampico were abducted by the Mexican military. What could've been handled with a simple apology exploded into armed conflict, at one point involving the US Navy invading and occupying Vera Cruz for six months. If you can't handle a minor international incident without almost starting a war, wouldn't YOU realize that maybe you're not the greatest statesman the world has ever seen? Well, you're smarter than Wilson was.

His administration wanted to join the war in Europe pretty much as soon as it broke out, but public sentiment was against it, because the American people had spent all their accumulated stupidity in electing Wilson.

Meanwhile, the Germans had realized that the UK, being a net importer of resources, was vulnerable to mass submarine attacks. If you sunk enough cargo ships, you'd eventually reach a point where the English were consuming more than they could import- the was called "point Z". Cross point Z, and hold there long enough, and the English would crack and sue for peace. Yes, the Americans were upset about the Lusitania, but they could be placated, and if they DID choose to enter the war, it wouldn't matter- the US military was, at the time, smaller than that of Bolivia, and building it up would take them so long that the war would be over by the time they were ready to fight.

The logic was sound, except for the flaw that it assumed the English, and the rest of Europe, would make no changes to help with submarine attacks. The development of depth charges and the convoy system slowed the rate of ships being sunk, while U-boat losses climbed. Then the Zimmerman telegram was sent, asking for Mexico to join the war against the US, with the promise of recovering territory lost in Mexican-American war if the Germans won. Some have claimed the telegram was faked, but even if it wasn't, Mexico was still in the throes of its own revolution, and in no position to do anything in a war with another country. But it proved the PR coup that Wilson wanted, and Congress declared war.

Imagine if they hadn't: every faction already fighting was already on the ropes (except, arguably, the Japanese; more on them later), and would've had to bow out before much longer. The war likely would've ended in a stalemate, with a few bits of land changing hands, but nothing serious. More importantly, Kerensky wouldn't've had to split his forces between the Germans and the Bolsheviks, and would've beaten the latter. No crippling German resentment of Versailles means no Nazi party (not that takes over Germany, anyway), no Japanese resentment of being ignored at Versailles means no hypernationalist imperial Japan, no USSR means no Cold War, and no constant threat of nuclear annihilation. No something-to-prove Japan means Chang Kai-Shek beats the Commies in China, too.

Thanks, Woodrow. Bang-up job.

World War 2 was more straightforward: Japanese contributions in the last war had been minor, but impressive- if you're unfamiliar with the Pollen Clock, I'd suggest reading up on it- and they wanted to rise to become a world power themselves. The Entente basically laughed at them, tossing them a few crumbs of the German empire, and when they began expanding anyway, the US acted as the OPEC of 1940 and turned off the oil. The Japanese tried fighting the Soviets (briefly), but their inferior tanks got smashed by better Russian ones, and so they decided to run amok in the Pacific instead. It didn't end well.

But the US only declared war on Japan; it was Hitler, suddenly developing principles about what an "alliance" means, who declared war on them first.

[RavVid]

May I ask what you consider was the most provocative to the US voter in 1917? Mexico might not have been capable but Germany's offer would had to have been offensive. Resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare on neutrals (i. e mostly US shipping) must have caused indignation. The memory of Lusitania could have rankled.

Or could it have been all three together?

I think in 1917 Wilson claimed Germany was waging war on the US. Would the US voter have concurred after the 1916 Presidential in 1917?

[NamerOfStars]

@RavVid The propaganda campaign was pretty thorough, but the mindset so different back then (forget the internet; even having TELEVISION changed a lot in how people perceived the world) that it's hard me to say what would've angered them the most. This wouldn't be the first time that claims ofattacks on American ships- regardless of their validity- would push the populace into accepting war; the sinking of the Maine, actually caused by a sailor smoking in the wrong place, pushed us into war with Spain.

[Avicenna]

The Zimmerman Telegram was not faked- the German Foreign Minister admitted it was genuine.

[RavVid]

@Avicenna And boasted about it! No grey ops back then or plausible deniabilty.

[RavVid]

Yes it was a 106 years ago and newspapers was the most there was. I can see the mindset would be hard to grasp now. Interesting with the Maine & smoking. I don't know much about that and the subsequent war with Spain.

To me it is an interesting question as to what it takes for a democracy to declare war. Mostly democracies have war declared against them or in effect like Pearl Harbor.

Undoubtedly the media shapes opinion to put it in the nicest terms.

[strateguy632]

too much emotion we can't know what they felt. only events.

[Anonymous]

Money power and influence.

In WW1 the US was backing Britain, France, Italy and Russia with loans and selling weapons and war materials too. France was in 1916-17 in danger of collapsing which would mean the French would not pay back their loans which is what happened with the Russian revolution in 1917. The US barely fought and most of the US military didn't arrive in Europe until the war was over. The US tried to get their loans back from Russia by opposing the reds and supporting the whites in Russia but the political will to fight was no longer. Regardless the US profited greatly from WW1 and became the no2 power in the world.

At the start of WW2 in 1939 with the AXIS pact and then the pact between the nazis and USSR it was clear that US intrests abroad were under threat. The banana wars had already established central and south America as US spheres of influence but the Japanese in the 30s were becoming a credible military challenger so to curtail this the US government stopped trading oil with Japan to wreck their economy and stall their military expansion into China, they also supported the Chinese nationalists against Japan. They knew if they backed China into a corner the Japanese would attack and this proved correct. This is a common move throughout US history to instigate a war the US government sets up a false flag attack on the US to drum up support for war such as the 1892 sinking of the USS Maine, the Zimmermann Telegram in ww1, Pearl Harbour ww2, Gulf of tonkin incident, 1989 invasion of Panama for drug dealing and racketeering, 1991 Gulf War, 2001 invasion of Afganistan, 2003 invasion of Iraq, Syrian civil war, Libyan civil war. Follows a pattern of create the incident to justify war.

Anyway the US got wealthy off British money and with no rivial economies and European Hedgemoney on global trade across their empires ended the US got wealthier and expanded their reach. Their only competitor the soviet union was largely broke after ww2 and had relied on US aid to defeat the nazis in the east.

[strateguy632]

wow! your history book must have been censored. the old history on paper, before corruption agendas and wikipedia, was "u. s. did not declare war even when attacked" in 1916, and NOT for ANY of the reasons you listed, until germany declared unlimited naval attacks called "unrestricted" and even then waited to see if it was an empty threat? until April 1917 when u. s. ships got attacked.

[Opinion Owner]

@strateguy632
upload.wikimedia.org/.../...oon_for_a_Telegram.jpg
The Zimmermann Telegram was released to the press a month before the US declared war. The US demanded unrestricted submarine warfare end in 1915 and it did until 1917. Like I previously said the US was supporting the French, British and Russians all through WW1. With Russian revolution and civil war in 1917 freeing the German and Austro Hungarian armies on the Eastern Front the Germans gambled that even if the US joined the war in 1917 by the time the US Military deployed fully in Europe the war would be over and they weren't wrong even if they didn't win. The US could not allow a German victory in Europe. The US government needed a reason to enter the war, unrestricted submarine warfare was one, another was a secret alliance made with Mexico promising them lost Mexican territories. If Britain and France had lost the US would not get their war loans back.

[Elliegirl]

The first time was to give aid to our Allie’s. The second time we were attacked. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, that was an act of war, this congress declared war on Japan. When we declared war on Japan, Germany in turn declared war on us, so we returned the favor. In large part, the USMC and Navy were in the Pacific theater, with some Army combatants. The European theater was predominantly the Army with some aid from the Navy and the British. Although some of it is “hollywoodized” Band of Brothers and The Pacific from HBO are all based on works of veterans of both engages and worth watching. As one girl to another, have a box of tissues handy. In both cases, you will cry!

[KostasKouvalis]

I thought declaring war on ONE axis power, automatically declared war on ALL axis powers

[Elliegirl]

@KostasKouvalis in a sense, it was

[strateguy632]

in the first, wilson also correctly waited until u. s. got attacked... Afterward he botched but the waiting was proper until the attack dragged u. s. in.

[ZackBan]

Supremacy.

The US took an opportunity to go from being the cool new country where everyone goes to make money, to a the biggest superpower in the world that holds control over everyone else.

And both wars where good opportunities to make that happen since the US waited for Russia France UK and Germany to be tired of all the fighting having lost money and people over many years and they swoop in very fresh with a lot of supplies and young healthy soldiers for an easy win (relatively speaking)

[strateguy632]

yeh, just skip that u. s. got attacked both wars, and had horrible battles in africa and the pacific. and that vritain was way stronger empire which america bolstered. but believe whatever propaganda you WANT.

[BCA6010]

In WW1, our government actually wanted to get involved much sooner, but public opinion was fiercely against it. It took years of propaganda to change minds, but most notably the sinking of the Lusitania, and the Zimmerman Telegram. The former is actually BS- the Lusitania was far from the first civilian ship with Americans onboard sunk in the Atlantic, plus it was in fact carrying military equipment, anyway. Regardless, it became the posterchild of our mobilization propaganda. The Zimmerman Telegram however, was real despite how unbelievably stupid it was.

In WW2, the obvious reason was Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. The part that's almost always left out however is that by this point we were already supplying China and the Allies against the Axis for months, and the Navy was already actively hunting German submarines as part of convoy operations, so it was pretty inevitable anyway.

[strateguy632]

yeh just skip unrestricted submarine warfare and danger. i guess history books are censored now.

[AviatorTom]

Simple answer... the US was attacked.

In WW1, the US was neutral, but supplied arms and other equipment to England. Germany considered that made US ships legitimate war targets, and German submarines sank many US ships, with many American seamen lost. That triggered the US to declare war on Germany and enter WW1.

In WW2, Japan attacked the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor Hawaii, and the US immediately declared war on Japan. Hitler, who had an alliance with Japan, then had Germany declare war on the US (some historians contend this was Hitler's biggest mistake), which caused the US to respond by declaring war on Germany.

[strateguy632]

close... but you also skipped unrestricted. why is that such a mystery. the germans did not limit their targets.

[molonski2]

Well , they certainly had zero choice in WW2 , they were attacked , a vital moment in history , in WW1 , they went in ( albeit a little late ) to protect the free world. WW1 could well have been a massive game changer , hard to even imagine now , Germany and Japan , still apologetic , but do we actually learn from history? Lets see in this next event when it comes.

[strateguy632]

if so would join in 1914 to save france. no in ww1 also waited until got attacked if germany played fair wilson would not join.

[molonski2]

@strateguy632 Maybe , and that's pretty much what I said. " No choice in WW1 albeit a bit late " , I'm saying if not attacked she wouldn't have joined , but then had little further option.

[Sixgunsound]

Access to markets domestic and foreign for our military Industrial Complex, honoring alliances, grabbing our share of the spoils of victory, establishing our place in the postwar dominance hierarchy, and killing off excess welfare recipients or working poor. There are no just or honorable wars, and the bank gangsters win all of them and the common people on both sides always lose.

[strateguy632]

markets? that would be more available when neutral but you can skip that america got attacked , everyone else did.

[smahala1991]

WW1: The Zimmermann telegram from Germany to Mexico wanting Mexico to go to war with the US to get Arizona , Texas, New Mexico and California back.

WW2 because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

[Anonymous]

World War 1 Germany's repeated attacks on our merchant ships. I. e. the Lusitania (even though the ship was actually British).

Ww2 officially it was Pearl Harbor. But this is kind of the point we get dragged into other people's s***!

Kind of like now. All the United States is trying to keeping shipping lanes open to the world while China wants to dominate it. The United States always has to protect the world from every f***ing bully that comes along. You're welcome!

[Anonymous]

b/c the US is/was the only power in the world at the time that could stop Germany. If the US comes into the war the tyrant is basically fucked. It's been that way for awhile. Plus other countries will plead for help at the doorstep for US involvement. Ultimately deals are made.

[strateguy632]

if so they would help france straight away in 1940 and 1914. why can't schools teach u. s. got attacked?

[RavVid]

I am quite interested in how US cits see it. The was strong isolationism in both by the US was forced into WW2 and I am interested in how a democracy that is reluctant for war eventually does declare war.

[D_Bone_Steak]

@RavVid I want you to fact check me... this is what I was told. Germans blew up some civilian ships or ours and it was fuck Isolation at that point. Fact check me... because I'd like to know if that is actually factual myself.

[RavVid]

@D_Bone_Steak I'll do my best. Written it down for tomorrow.

[strateguy632]

find a PAPER history book then read about January 1917 and April.

[RavVid]

@strateguy632 ok thanks. Jan was resumption of unrestricted submarine war I know. Have to check on April.

[exitseven]

MyWW2 veteran father would say it was to save the world for democracy.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Democracy only works when enough people are still sane though.

[KostasKouvalis]

WWII, because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and I don't know why we got involved in WWI, but the US in general loves to get involved in other people's wars

[strateguy632]

you know they waited until japan that is not "eager"...

[jahaims]

Ww1 Germany was attacking civilian boats because we were supplying there enemy and in ww2 we joined because Japan attacked us for cutting off their oil supply.

[SawerBrown]

Well in WW11 they were attacked at Pearl Harbour.

[normalice]

We knew we'd be next after Europe was conquered.

[strateguy632]

if so should attack as soon as france surrendered in 1940. in fact by 1941 both soviets and u. k. SUCCESSFULLY blocked and contained nazis. u. s. could and did stay nutral until they got attacked, in both wars.

[normalice]

@strateguy632 people in our government knew but the population did not know or did not care enough to send their sons to die. Thus the government went on a media campaign to teach the evils of fascism much like it once did to teach the evils of slavery. This got people interested in the war. We could not join until then.

[Meropatrick]

Its a world war so everyone got to be involved either to protect an ally or protect interests.

[strateguy632]

but... u. s. did NOT protect u. k. in 1940 nor soviets in 1941, so that was not the reason and by November 1941 soviets pushed back the nazi threat.

[Anonymous]

There's not really anything that goes on in the world that the US doesn't involve itself in somehow. Sometimes good, sometimes not.

[strateguy632]

oh please, if true, they would join in 1914. but did not. no surprise anonymous for this. anon should only be for dating questions never for replies.

[JoeMichael67]

To line people's pockets. The last honorable war we've had was the Civil War.

[strateguy632]

yeh just skip the self defense part, and same for iraq, it is not like kuwait or kurds asked for help... oh they did.

[BLP11520]

WW2 we got attacked and that was it for us.. Pearl Harbor. We beat Nazi Germany and Japan, Italy was not very tough to beat.

[Anonymous]

It is all about money. The USA doesn't care about anything else, never did.

[strateguy632]

very wrong. u. s. was neutral until they we got attacked. you also used anon, musused for historical corruption.

[msc545]

Money, the reason behind almost every US war.

[strateguy632]

wrong, for self defense. i guess high schools stopped teaching history. everybody left out self defense.

[msc545]

@strateguy632 Other than the British in 1812 and the Japanese in 1941 (1940?) who the hell ELSE were we "defending" ourselves against?

[WhiteBoyChill]

WW1 I don't know why. WW2, we were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor

[strateguy632]

maybe ww2 was a hint about ww1 policy?

[JonesT10Apr]

I'm really weak in History... like to answer in short& Summarized way

[mommymommymommy]

Got us out of our depression. Financially

[strateguy632]

if so 1939... would join war but did not.

[MementoMori777]

why not

[strateguy632]

why not? kuz people die in war. families suffer.

[MementoMori777]

😂😂😂