*Shudder* No. I never read the Mail, which I consider to possibly be the most insidious paper in Britain. I mean, on the surface sometimes what is written starts out as seeming to be reasonable, but when you get to the end of the article you realise that the conclusion is just... out there. Loathe the Mail with a passion.
And, seeing as I don't have the benefit of working in a library where copies of daily newspapers are available *g*, nope. No Mail for me. Thank God, it seems in this case.
For a start, the suggestion that Britain, France, or whoever they're getting at owes gratitude to the US for 'saving' us/them during WW2 grossly oversimplifies the position.
Am I exceedingly grateful the US entered the war? Christ, yes. Do I think that the US did so out of purely altruistic motives?
Get real. Of course not. I like to think that the US would eventually have entered the war, if for no other reason than Hitler in control of the whole of Western Europe could have led to a real imbalance of power worldwide. Plus, there were undoubtedly people in the US who did want to help from mostly altruistic motives. I also can't blame those at all who were against getting involved, after the carnage that was WW1. However, the fact is that the trigger for the US becoming involved with WW2 was that the US itself was attacked. Thank God for Pearl Harbour (from a European perspective). It also ignores the fact that the people who were most responsible for Germany's defeat were the (then) Soviet nations, not the Americans, and certainly not the British. It's no coincidence that the Soviets suffered the most casualities at the hands of the Germans.
But it looks like the Mail (as usual) ignores all of that, in favour of, as you write 'vile journojism'. Sigh.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 11 February 2003 12:41 (UTC)*Shudder* No. I never read the Mail, which I consider to possibly be the most insidious paper in Britain. I mean, on the surface sometimes what is written starts out as seeming to be reasonable, but when you get to the end of the article you realise that the conclusion is just... out there. Loathe the Mail with a passion.
And, seeing as I don't have the benefit of working in a library where copies of daily newspapers are available *g*, nope. No Mail for me. Thank God, it seems in this case.
For a start, the suggestion that Britain, France, or whoever they're getting at owes gratitude to the US for 'saving' us/them during WW2 grossly oversimplifies the position.
Am I exceedingly grateful the US entered the war? Christ, yes. Do I think that the US did so out of purely altruistic motives?
Get real. Of course not. I like to think that the US would eventually have entered the war, if for no other reason than Hitler in control of the whole of Western Europe could have led to a real imbalance of power worldwide. Plus, there were undoubtedly people in the US who did want to help from mostly altruistic motives. I also can't blame those at all who were against getting involved, after the carnage that was WW1. However, the fact is that the trigger for the US becoming involved with WW2 was that the US itself was attacked. Thank God for Pearl Harbour (from a European perspective). It also ignores the fact that the people who were most responsible for Germany's defeat were the (then) Soviet nations, not the Americans, and certainly not the British. It's no coincidence that the Soviets suffered the most casualities at the hands of the Germans.
But it looks like the Mail (as usual) ignores all of that, in favour of, as you write 'vile journojism'. Sigh.