"Most Americans don't seem to understand that WWII was an inter-imperial war"

[Antiwar]

You do know that the primary definition of "rhetoric" is;
1: the art of speaking or writing effectively: such as
a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times
b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2a: skill in the effective use of speech

The history of the US government leading up to WWII was anticolonial. FDR was a firm anti-colonialist and pursued this ideology to the best of his abilities. Indochina was an ideal candidate for Roosevelt’s proposed trusteeship system. But it could never be effectively planned for with the instability of the war. FDR's proclivity for personalizing foreign policy with limited coordination with the State Department didn't help because once he passed there was no real formulated formal State Dept. policy on the issue. But even if he had more effectively articulated his plans the international coalition needed to implement them would almost certainly have never materialized. The very incident which caused the opportunity for the dissolution of empires was also the root of their continuance. The return of the French to Indochina was a regrettable misstep in the history of the liberation of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. But such is the complexity of wartime politics.

Did you watch any of the video?

 

[Glitch]

Of course it was. However, the Philippines was already well on its way to gaining independence by the time Japan invaded— a literal law had been passed giving a set date for when the US would be gone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings–McDuffie_Act

Imperial Japan’s psychotic brutality, however, made the previous European colonizers look downright benign in comparison.

Consider the source. The OP is obviously uneducated about American history. Citing WW II, yet referencing laws enacted in 1903. All of America's colonial engagements took place prior to WW I, and WW II had absolutely nothing do with colonialism.

By the time Japan invaded the US and the Philippines had been fighting a brutal guerilla war for 40 years. Furthermore, the Tydings–McDuffie Act would have made the Philippines an independent nation prior to 1944 - "within 10 years" of enacting the law. Yet the Philippines didn't win their independence until 1946, almost a year after WW II had ended.

I wouldn't be so easy on European colonizers either. What Spain and Portugal did to Mexico and South America are easily equivalent to what the Japanese did in Nanjing, China.

 

[Questerr]

Consider the source. The OP is obviously uneducated about American history. Citing WW II, yet referencing laws enacted in 1903. All of America's colonial engagements took place prior to WW I, and WW II had absolutely nothing do with colonialism.

By the time Japan invaded the US and the Philippines had been fighting a brutal guerilla war for 40 years. Furthermore, the Tydings–McDuffie Act would have made the Philippines an independent nation prior to 1944 - "within 10 years" of enacting the law. Yet the Philippines didn't win their independence until 1946, almost a year after WW II had ended.

I wouldn't be so easy on European colonizers either. What Spain and Portugal did to Mexico and South America are easily equivalent to what the Japanese did in Nanjing, China.

Might the reason why the Philippines didn’t get independence until 1946 he related to the fact that it was occupied by Japan from 1942 to 45?

 

[Glitch]

Might the reason why the Philippines didn’t get independence until 1946 he related to the fact that it was occupied by Japan from 1942 to 45?

But the US wasn't, and it was the US that enacted the law.

 

[Questerr]

But the US wasn't, and it was the US that enacted the law.

And part of the deal was that the US would help develop Philippine domestic institutions. Kinda hard to do that when the Japanese are occupying the islands.

 

[Craig234]

The initial US intelligence assessment of Ho Chi Minh was that he was more nationalist than communist and therefore an acceptable partner - so the US provided him with weapons and training teams to help teach his Viet Minh guerrillas how to fight.

Hell, at the time were partnered with Stalin. So they got it right about him being a nationalist - but Republicans needed an issue to run on and started the 'red scare', and 'anyone not a right-wing dictator is a communist' happened and we supported France and then created 'South Vietnam' with our puppet and war to defeat the nationalists, first Truman appeasing the red scare and then the Dulles brothers.

 

[Craig234]

The history of the US government leading up to WWII was anticolonial. FDR was a firm anti-colonialist and pursued this ideology to the best of his abilities. Indochina was an ideal candidate for Roosevelt’s proposed trusteeship system. But it could never be effectively planned for with the instability of the war.

Europe was passionately pro-colonialism, with centuries of history and a lot of benefit from it. IMO it was largely JFK who challenged it finally, as Europe was having a harder and harder time keeping its colonies with the global movement toward independence, as the west tried to win 'hearts and minds' of the third world against the communists who offered revolution. FDR had a much more uphill battle trying earlier.

 

[Glitch]

Hell, at the time were partnered with Stalin. So they got it right about him being a nationalist - but Republicans needed an issue to run on and started the 'red scare', and 'anyone not a right-wing dictator is a communist' happened and we supported France and then created 'South Vietnam' with our puppet and war to defeat the nationalists, first Truman appeasing the red scare and then the Dulles brothers.

Actually, it was Democrat President Truman who sold France $80 billion in WW II US military surplus so they could continue fighting to hold their colony in Vietnam. It was also Democrat President Truman who attempted to illegally seize and nationalize the steel industry in the US in 1952. The attempted communist take-over of the steel industry by a sitting President was the tipping point that put the nation into a panic about communism. Truman didn't appease the "red scare," he WAS the "red scare." That, and the Democrat-controlled House Committee on Un-American Activities illegal investigations into the private lives of its citizens.

 

[Integrityrespec]

You can make that case for the UK or Britain if you will, but not for the United States. For the United States, if there was a buck in it, IT WAS ON. The United States couldn't give a crap about worldwide white supremacy. Our "ideology" was capitalism. Our geopolitical reason for existence was Capitalism.

Now, domestic white supremacy in the United States is a different story, particularly when some fat, white, orange haired jerk sporting ducktails comes along and scares the shit out of other White People, playing on fears that have existed here since the 16th and 17th century.

The U.S. did take steps to form the basics of a democracy in the areas it occupied. That's more than can be said of most.