Not being neutral is not a bad thing, but stop saying you are neutral when its not true.

    by Pab0l

    12 Comments

    1. Unusual_Club_550 on

      The US was neutral selling goods to a nation at war is aligning with the nation but not getting involved also the US traded with Germany before joining

    2. Ok OP if you think about it again, your argument doesn’t rlly make sense, yes the us supports the allies but it hasn’t declared war on Germany yet and has done no military action against it yet. So it’s still neutral functionally and technically. Which means your argument basically collapses on itself cause your statement claiming that the US is not neutral has nothing to back it up as the US has not yet committed any action that would oppose the definitions of being a neutral nation.

      Definition of a neutral nation btw:”A neutral country is a sovereign state that is neutral towards belligerents in a specific war”

      Edit: ah nvm guys what I’m referring to is non belligerent, a neutral nation is classified as a nation that doesn’t supply war material to the belligerent nations.
      Which Ig means that op is right? Though I think the classification of what’s a neutral nation was rather blur in WWII

      Look at Wikipedia for the definition btw

    3. Should have waged a better propaganda campaign against the concept of distant blockade and the Q-ships then- oh wait, you can’t because the UK has control over the trans-atlantic cables.

    4. Trading with a nation at war is not an act of war against that nation’s adversaries.

      Sinking ships, however, is. 

      Hope this helps

    5. The Lusitania was also carrying a shitload of ammunition. Sinking it was still a dumb move politically

    6. MazigaGoesToMarkarth on

      Argentina, Iceland, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Korea, and Sudan have all traded military equipment to Ukraine, so Russia is entitled to attack their people right?

    Leave A Reply