Why do neo cons think France were cowards in WW11 when the USA 's inaction was totally completely cowardly?

Question

France declared war on the Nazis when they invaded Poland, the USA were cowards and refused to declare war, when London was bomb and lost 40 000 civilians, the American response was to pass a law forbidding Americans to fight the Nazis.
it was only when the USA was attacked that the USA grew a little back bone and stopped supporting the Nazis and joined the brave french and British, a very very cowardly act by America

It wasnt France and Britain's responability to fight the Nazis either however they saw an evil and did something about it.

I am from a very brave country who hasnt needed american help at all

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of the Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism:

1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of risks in that growth, such as budget deficits
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military

Answer 1

This is entirely correct. Many American businessmen preferred to stay out of the war and sell raw materials and products to all sides, cash and carry. We had prominent people like Henry Ford who openly admired the Nazis, or Lindburgh who supported them, or Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush who's Union Bank continued to support the fund Nazi industrialists until 1942.

There was huge opposition from Republican senators against the US being in any way involved in assisting England, much less France until we were attacked on Dec 7th. Germany declared war on the US the next day. It was forced on us.

Answer 2

France was on the side that was winning be it ours or the Nazis.. I'm not saying they were cowardly.. I'm just saying that when it came to fighting and you looked behind you they were running the other direction.. I remember reading some where that the french when confronted by Nazis Panzer tanks, The French got out of their tanks and ran leaving their equipment to be destroyed ..First we didn't have a dog in the fight we had no reason to be in the war until provoked ....Second I hate to say this but its a little nieve of you to think you would not now be speaking German and France would not be at all, if not for the United States. To this day the only reason no one has bothers France is because of us...

Answer 3

I think it was all because of politics, you have to remember there was a very powerful isolationist movement during that period, fronted by Charles Lindburgh. Rooservelt did all he could to help the Brits in particular by Lend Lease, which was a generous crock since it was basically a gift. Additionally by protecting Lend Lease shipping way outside US territorial waters. But he simply did not have the political strength to join the Allies until after Pearl Harbor.

Answer 4

Americans for a long time viewed the war as "Europes War" and had to that point, always been warry to intervene in matters from the other side of the ocean.

The irony of your argument is that most people now see it as a bad thing that U.S. IS taking possitive action against people like Hitler. Would your accusations be the same on the "brave french" for thier role in the Iraq conflict?

Answer 5

You're spreading it on a bit thick with the cowardice thing, aren't you? The U.S. had no overriding interests in European affairs. Early entry might even be construed as a revocation of the Monroe Doctrine. And we really didn't have anything to contribute. For our world-wide interests, our army was smaller than Romania's.

Answer 6

Probaly because after they were defeated by the Nazis brave little Frenchmen helped them fight the war (look up the Waffen-SS). Another thing is how was it our responsibility to protect the French and the British?

BTW Ruth, just because the liberals don't want to be in Iraq doesn't mean they don't want to fight terrorists. Not all liberals, but the level-headed ones disagree with Iraq because the terrorist weren't there before we were and thought it was a distraction to the war on terror.

Answer 7

You should just be thankful that this is history. If it were happening today, the liberals would not allow us to get involved.

Pay attention: The destruction of Pearl Harbor vs. the destruction of the World Trade Centers. And the liberals don't want us to fight terrorism.

EDIT: I know of no such thing as "smart liberals," however, you might have noticed it was not Hitler who bombed Pearl Harbor.

Answer 8

First of all, "neocon" does NOT mean Republican.

Secondly, I agree that we should have gotten involved with WWII sooner - but do you realize that 70% of Americans did not want to get involved, even if England fell to the Nazis? Know why? They didn't think there was anything in it for us.

Answer 9

And what brave country are you from? If it wasn't for the USA you'd probably be rotting away in some prison somewhere.

Answer 10

the so called neocons think France is a coward nation because Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, and Bush told them that was what they are supposed to think.