The excerpt likely emphasizes the moral obligation of the United States to support allies facing aggression, highlighting the threat posed by totalitarian regimes to global democracy. It may illustrate the consequences of inaction, suggesting that failing to intervene could lead to greater conflicts and loss of freedoms. Additionally, it could underscore the economic and strategic benefits of involvement, framing participation in World War II as essential for national security and global stability.
The US is not yet involved in world 11. The next world war should be WWIII so they have a way to go.
Depression should be left to be solved themselves without the Government getting involved in the economy.
no but they just call it that because of the many countriesw involved. (brazil wasn't really involved in world war 2. neither was madagascar.)
About as scary as anything could be. The war involved most areas of the world, and involved civilians as well as the military.
Before world war 2, Spain was involved in a civil war.
European.
EuropeanEuropean
America did get involved
Why shouldn't they? They're part of the world to.
Logos
Canada did not have any obligation to be involved in World War 1. Canada had no personal grievances against any of the powers involved.
to help people less fortunate than them in the world
because he was powerful
He was involved heavily in World War I when he contributed to the Manhattan project that went on to develop the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war in the Pacific, however, he has made no contributions beneficial to either the axis nor allies in WWI.
The name 'World War' should give you a clue. It happened over most of the world, and most of the world's leading countries were involved. Even the USA was involved for a while, but not as long as some other nations.
To make clear to the world why the colonies must separate from Britain.
The US is not yet involved in world 11. The next world war should be WWIII so they have a way to go.