I agree, nations are generally not motivated by benevolence and certainly not at that time. However, the US was still on the right side of the war, it was good that it joined, and it did make a substantial contribution to the war effort. I'm not claiming that the US was "pure of heart" or something, what I am claiming that its involvement in WWII did more good than harm.

Saying that they only joined the war when it was clear that the Soviets were going to win is just ahistorical. The Germans had just reached Moscow days before US entry into the war, and the outcome of the war was far from certain. Yes, there was plenty of quibbling over who gets what towards the end of the war, particularly under Truman, but that doesn't mean that the US did not make real contributions in it.

I guess I just don't see why it's necessary to shit on the one time the US stumbled into the right side of history, to the point of historical inaccuracy. The Soviets were glad to have the US in the war, and coordinated with them substantially. You can hate the US while still acknowledging that. I don't see what the Iran War has to do with anything.

They let the germs and Soviets weaken themselves, they saw both as their enemies.

Saying that they only joined the war when it was clear that the Soviets were going to win is just ahistorical.

Again, only after the battle of Stalingrad decided the future outcome in 1943 did they enter the European theater.
Those are 2 facts and historically accurate.
Yes the Soviets were glad the west did a (small) part against the nazis.
But that only was a temporary marriage of convenience.
And again, they only went in to grab a piece of the loot as the opportunistic vultures they are so the Soviets wouldn't get it.
Which they still could if they wanted to, and chase the combined western 'allies' out too if they decided to continue the war.
I'm certain they don't teach that in most US schools but they do at West Point military academy BTW, in case you want to call that ahistorical again.
The US deserves to be shit on for all the awful things they do and did.
If you're looking for a win for your country, WW2 is not it.
As I said, we Europeans became US vassals, same as the Japanese.
So no, they were not the good guys despite the liberator heroes propaganda BS.

Again, only after the battle of Stalingrad decided the future outcome in 1943 did they enter the European theater.

Before D-Day, the US prioritized Europe before Japan, and it fought the Germans in North Africa and in naval battles, while providing material support to the Soviet war effort.

The US deserves to be shit on for all the awful things they do and did.

100% agree. It does not, however, deserve to be shit on for killing fascists 80 years ago.

If you’re looking for a win for your country, WW2 is not it.

I am absolutely not "looking for a win for my country" I am simply not willing to change historical facts just to make the US look worse than it already is, because I don't need to.

So no, they were not the good guys despite the liberator heroes propaganda BS.

Nobody said anything about "good guys."

There's plenty of bullshit propaganda regarding the historical narrative, but that doesn't mean that this knee-jerk criticism is correct. Like when you've reached the point of "The US is bad because it provoked Imperial Japan" I think you need to seriously consider whether you're overcorrecting.

Before D-Day, the US prioritized Europe before Japan , and it fought the Germans in North Africa and in naval battles

North Africa was largely a British effort (not to mention also late in the war, AFTER Stalingrad)
The actual fighting in Europe except for some bombing runs was the invasion of Sicily. Also 1943.

I am not overcorrecting, just correcting.
I have also for a long time overestimated their efforts (and allies in general) when the Soviets eliminated 85% of nazis, most of their troops were on the eastern front.
Al this caused by propaganda and revisionism.
The times and places of battles are correct, they are not up for discussion.
How you interpret them and their weight is another thing.
But more important than their effort was the realization of their motives.
That was the shocking thing for me, also Europe's part and the heavy downplaying of collaboration and whitewashing afterwards.
Maybe we should make a difference here between the troops and government also when talking about the US actions.
I believe that nearly all the soldiers should be respected for the effort in fighting fascists.
The government is another thing.
You may see it differently but we can have our own opinions.
That's all I have to say I guess, unless you have objections ;)

Fair enough. I just think that our line should be slightly more reserved. Its enough to point out that the US was motivated primarily by self-interest and that the Soviets made the greatest contribution to the war effort (although I generally find that sort of "glory hounding" distasteful regardless of who's doing it, it is good to set the record straight). Those two things have very firm backing, and I don't think there's any narrative that should require going further than that. Imo, that only weakens otherwise solid criticism by getting into more disputable territory and gives fuel to accusations that we're just knee-jerk anti-American regardless of anything it does or doesn't do.

Whether it would have been possible (or strategically advisable) to do D-Day sooner is not a concrete fact. The US needed time to mobilize. If you want to present some form of hard evidence or academic work that proves otherwise, be my guest. But until then, I think your argument rests on shaky ground and again I just don't see any reason to push that far.

What exactly is the harm in just saying, "Yes, the US stumbled into doing something good one time, and it's been exaggerating about that for the past 80 years and using it to justify themselves while conducting imperialistic campaigns of terror and brutality ever since?" Do we really need that one good thing to actually be bad? Why?