this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
925 points (98.2% liked)

Science Memes

13349 readers
3802 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iSeth@lemmy.ml 70 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (14 children)

Not unprovoked and not for 5 more years. Germany declared war on the US. Until Pearl Harbor, the US was quite neutral.

Edit: correct 4 to 5

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 day ago (13 children)

They were about as “neutral” as they were in the Ukraine conflict under Biden.

They were selling loads of weapons at discount prices and supporting the allies in many ways.

You’re right though that the US public was generally against joining the war, and the US as a whole, tended to be quite isolationist until Pearl Harbour.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (9 children)

They were selling weapons to both sides. GM controlled Opel until the 1940s, they built a lot of the nazi war machine (using forced labor), the Ford-Werke factory in Germany produced V2 rocket turbines among other parts, and US strategic bombers were specifically told to avoid bombing it because it was owned by an american, Exxon and Dow licensed patents for synthetic rubber and other war materials Germany lacked, Chase provided loans necessary for the rearmament, IBM sold the nazis the computers they used to carry out the holocaust.

The capitalist class looked at fascism as the savior of capitalism; they'd been terrified of a revolution in Germany and Hitler had just shown them an alternative. There's a reason he was Time's man of the year in 1938.

[–] Shrubbery@piefed.social 10 points 22 hours ago (2 children)
[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 14 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

Good catch, I have edited it accordingly. Real "giving the nobel peace prize to Henry Kissinger and the guys he is currently dropping chemical weapons on" vibes.

Also: Holy shit, Chiang Kai-Shek is there for 1937.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I wish they'd put the articles behind those covers on their site, rather than just simple biographies. I'd like to read how people like Hitler and Stalin were perceived in the run up to WW2. Stalin in 39 is particularly interesting because that's just after Molotov-Ribbentrop has been signed and WW2 has started with the Russian allied to the Germans.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

The USSR never allied with the Germans, it was a non-aggression pact, made after the USSR failed to get Britain, France, or Poland to support them in invading Germany in response to Czechoslovakia. Instead Britain, France, and Poland signed the Munich Agreement, dividing Czechoslovakia between Germany and Poland.

To be clear, even after the invasion of Poland in 1940, the western powers intended to support Germany against the USSR, Britain even tried to send troops to support Germany's ally, Finland in the winter war, after the invasion of Poland, and was only prevented when it ended too quickly.

[–] truthfultemporarily@feddit.org 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Person of the year is not a honorific. It just means most important or influential.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

excuse me i won person of the year and i'm taking it as an honorific

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 6 points 21 hours ago

Time Magazine Person of the Year is for the most influential person of the year. Not the best, or most admirable. Merely the greatest agent of change.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)