Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter

I remember the two athletes giving the black power salute when receiving their medals at the Mexico Olympics

But then it was seen as scary - even the words Black Power carried a feeling of violence. However things have moved on and (apart from the usual few idiots) I’m sensing a different feel.

Much more interracial protesters and a feeling that violence is not what the organiser want.

There is fear now

Actually the USA only entered World War 2 after Pearl Harbour. There was no great enthusiasm until then. We can't know if they would have joined in had the attack on Pearl Harbour not taken place. The USA did enter into an agreement to supply arms etc to the UK under the Lend/Lease scheme but prior to 1941 that was as far as it went.

Goodness Paddyann, you really don't care about the appalling brutality past and present in other countries? Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Galltiari (sp) and so many more. As has been said, it was fortunate that America didn't take a similar attitude towards Europe in both W.Wars!! But for Pearl Harbour, they might well have done second round! A fortunate horror!?

The USA did enter into an agreement to supply arms etc to the UK under the Lend/Lease scheme but prior to 1941 that was as far as it went
Roosevelt had to tread a very careful line about being involved in the war in Europe. He was well aware that the largest group of American citizens were of German heritage, having immigrated to the northern States in the latter half of the 19th century.
Not only Churchill, but King George VI went to America before 1941 to plead for support in the war against Germany.

Thanks janeainsworth, for clarifying the reluctance in the US to join in Europe's war.

Nevertheless, Roosevelt and Churchill were corresponding from 1939-1941. America increased its service personnel and the economy was already gearing up for re-armaments. America was supplying Britain and China from 1939 and was instructed to fire on German vessels in the Atlantic. Roosevelt already had already planned land-lease before Pearl Harbour and the American declaration of war.

Their reluctance was also due to American losses in WW1 in a war that actually didn't affect the U.S. The only way to get America into WW2 was to change public opinion, so by attacking America Pearl Harbour did that overnight! Pearl Harbour has always seemed, convenient? Maybe a blessed coincidence,but I've sometimes wondered who knew what, as I find it hard to believe that the Japanese deliberately antagonised America into a war they couldn't win! Those Carriers being conveniently at sea? I'm probably being fanciful and completely wrong! But it does seem?!!!

The American navy patrolled the Pacific before 1941. America had been enforcing trade embargoes and sanctions on Japan, which was at war with China. America was supplying China. Japan wanted to destroy the Pacific fleet and persuade the Americans to lift the sanctions.

The Pacific fleet had a major base in Pearl Harbor. Maybe Japan was hoping that opposition to war in the US would prevent Roosevelt from declaring war. The attack on Pearl Harbor certainly succeeded in inflicting damage on the American fleet, but the carriers, which by this time were crucial to the war, weren't in Pearl Harbor. It was the catalyst Roosevelt needed and united the opposition to war.

nd the biggest losers were Japan with Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...both totally unecessary as the Emporer had already surrendered .

I think you could be right growstuff. I'd forgotten that Japan of course had invaded China and that the Americans supported China. Japan effectively took a gamble, and lost. The carriers being at sea was just fortunate!

JABBERWOK I'm of the opinion we should sort out our own problems before we attempt to sort out others ,,,who may in fact not think they have a problem or want it "sorted" The UK and the USA have a history of meddling in others affairs

Generally when theres a wee bonus in it for themselves like oil ,then they get the contracts for the rebuld and forget the lives they destroyed in the process

I’ll just drop this here for those of you who consider statues more important than lives to get hot under the collar about. Me? I think it is amusing

The Emperor may have surrendered, but the military most certainly had not!

So true

“When a Prime Minister displays fury that a statue is covered up in case it gets defaced yet ignores a tower block that is still covered up three years after being set on fire, killing seventy-two people, it comes as no surprise that there is trouble in the streets.“

There is a widespread belief that the United States voluntarily entered into the war against Germany in the last days of 1941 which is not correct.

It is a fact that Germany declared war on the United States four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour being December 11th 1941. Exactly why Hitler made that decision has always been one of the most puzzling queries of the second world war. However, it sealed the fate of the German nation in that conflict as the Wehrmacht invasion of Russia was already by that time running into serious difficulties.

However, whether the United States would have fully committed to the European theatre of that war in the way that it did without that declaration of war being thrust upon the American nation is debatable I feel.

Link to the above can be found here:-
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States

The fascists are out in force giving the Nazi salute and attempting to attack the BLM protest.

“And they salute the foes their fathers fought
By raising their right arms in the air

What do they know of England
Who only England know?”

Yes Grandad, that is another Hitler mystery! Why on earth would he have done that?! A grandiose gesture maybe! Attacking Russia was completely foolhardy, again why? particularly as they had been allies! Dunkirk! He could have annihilated those troops in the beach and sunk all the rescue ships. Why let them go?! None of it surely makes any sense from a German point of view?!

I presume the fascists or any other group have as much right to march or protest as BLM?

On a thread where Churchill is hailed as a hero for fighting fascists are we now cheering their right to march?

In a free society you would think so, but democracy only seems to work one way in this country, unfortunately!

jabberwok you know as well as I do that your statement isn’t true.

Who on here is cheering?! We're just commenting that a free society is exactly that, freedom to protest whatever your political beliefs!

Again, depends on your opinion , which you should be able to freely express without being sneered at!